X Corp case: Centre tells Karnataka HC to enforce stricter rules on content takedowns

The Union Government has underlined the urgent necessity for tighter regulation in the digital ecosystem, citing rising cyber threats and pervasive digital surveillance. The submission was made before the Karnataka High Court during a hearing on a case involving X Corp (formerly Twitter) and the government’s content takedown directives.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, argued that internet intermediaries such as X Corp cannot invoke constitutional protections reserved for individuals and must act with greater responsibility given their influence and reach.

The matter, being heard by Justice N Nagaprasanna, centres around X Corp’s legal challenge to the application of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The company has contended that the provision cannot serve as a standalone basis for blocking content and has insisted that such actions must follow the formal process laid down under Section 69A and the Information Technology (IT) Rules.

Digital Surveillance & AI Concerns

During the proceedings, Mehta drew attention to the broader digital threat landscape, highlighting how even everyday devices such as smart TVs could potentially be used for surveillance.

“Even smart TVs equipped with cameras could serve as potential surveillance tools,” Mehta said, adding that many public figures ask visitors to leave their mobile phones outside meeting rooms as these gadgets are capable of recording conversations. He expressed concern about “the continuous monitoring by social media.”

Addressing the rapid evolution of technology, Mehta acknowledged the dual nature of Artificial Intelligence, describing it as both an asset and a risk. “He acknowledged it as a developmental boon but also as a potential hazard,” noting that legal frameworks must be updated to address these new threats effectively.

Platforms Cannot Claim Article 19 Protection, Says Centre

Countering X Corp’s assertion that it is protected under Article 19 of the Constitution—which guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression—Mehta argued that this right is only applicable to individuals, not digital platforms.

“Such protections are exclusively for individuals and not for platforms,” Mehta stated. Referring to X Corp as a “notice board,” he said, “Only those who post content can claim protections under Article 19.”

Mehta also cited the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, which upheld the government's authority to regulate content in the public interest. “Content on public platforms can be regulated in the public interest,” he said.

Clarifying Safe Harbour & Intermediary Responsibility

On the issue of intermediary liability, Mehta pointed to Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules 2021, which mandates that intermediaries must remove unlawful content upon notification by authorities. Failure to comply results in the loss of 'safe harbour'—a legal shield under Section 79 of the IT Act that protects platforms from being held liable for user-generated content.

“Section 79 is not a penal provision but rather a protective exception that intermediaries forfeit if they ignore legal notices,” Mehta explained. “One cannot claim exemption without accountability.”

Algorithmic Bias Under Judicial Lens

Justice Nagaprasanna observed that digital platforms are often programmed to favour algorithmic engagement, which may compromise their neutrality. The bench appeared to acknowledge the complexities that arise from platforms that both host content and influence its visibility through automated systems.

The case, which has major implications for the regulation of digital platforms in India, is set to continue on July 18.