The legal battle between the Indian government and social media platform X (formerly Twitter) intensified this week in the Karnataka High Court, as the latter questioned the authority of multiple government officers to issue takedown notices.
During a hearing on Tuesday, X’s senior counsel KG Raghavan told the court that a growing number of officials were issuing takedown notices for online content. Referring to a recent notice from the railways department over a video showing a car on railway tracks, Raghavan said, “This is the danger, My Lord, that is done now, if every Tom, Dick, and Harry officer is authorised.”
The remark drew strong criticism from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who responded, “Officers are not Tom, Dick, or Harry… they are statutory functionaries.” He added that no social media intermediary can expect a completely unregulated environment.
At the same hearing, X submitted a plea to amend its original March petition challenging Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The amended plea now also seeks to strike down Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, which allows government agencies to order intermediaries to remove online content.
While Mehta objected to the challenge on constitutional grounds being raised “at this late stage,” he stated he had no issue with allowing X to amend its petition. Justice M Nagaprasanna permitted X to file the updated plea within two days and set the next hearing for July 8.
The case dates back to March 2024, when X filed a petition claiming that Section 79(3)(b) contradicts the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Shreya Singhal case, which restricts content blocking to Section 69A orders or court rulings. The company argues that the IT Rules are being misapplied to circumvent legal safeguards.
X also challenged the government’s Sahyog portal, calling it a “Censorship Portal” with no statutory backing. The portal, managed by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), centralizes takedown requests under Section 79(3)(b).
The Centre, however, maintains that X has misunderstood the scope of Sections 69A and 79(3)(b). It argues that Section 69A provides specific guidelines and safeguards for content blocking, while Section 79(3)(b) simply ensures intermediaries comply with lawful directions.
In a related development, DigiPub and Newslaundry cofounder Abhinandan Sekhri have also moved the court, seeking to intervene in support of X’s position and challenge the IT provisions in question.
 intensified this week in the Karnataka High C...){kind=link}