In a striking courtroom revelation, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta unveiled the vulnerabilities of social media platforms during a hearing at the Karnataka High Court. This development underscores the ongoing tensions between government regulatory powers and digital free speech protections under Indian law.
Dramatic Demonstration of Digital Vulnerabilities
During the hearing, Mehta, representing the central government, showcased how easily misinformation can spread online. “We created this account. It is verified. I can now post anything, and lakhs would believe that the Supreme Court of Karnataka has said it,” Mehta argued, underscoring the anonymity and lack of accountability that currently exists online. He emphasized that the account was created solely for demonstrative purposes and was never used to post any content, highlighting how impersonation can occur within minutes.
This tactic drew sharp objections from Senior Advocate KG Raghavan, representing X Corp (formerly Twitter). “You cannot pass this off to the Court without scrutiny or context,” he said. Justice M Nagaprasanna, presiding over the case, acknowledged the concern but noted it was illustrative only. “Their point is that creation of such fake accounts is far too easy,” he observed.
Core Dispute Over Content Takedown Mechanisms
The case stems from X Corp’s petition challenging government-issued takedown orders under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This provision strips intermediaries of safe harbour protections if they fail to remove unlawful content upon notification by the government. X Corp argues that content blocking should exclusively follow procedures under Section 69A, which allows the government to restrict access to information for reasons like national security, public order, or sovereignty, but with stricter safeguards including review committees.
Mehta countered by referencing the landmark Shreya Singhal v. Union of India case, where the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A for violating freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. He reiterated concerns that internet users function as their own publishers, complicating oversight while necessitating balanced regulation to protect fundamental rights.
Parallels with Emerging Online Threats
Justice Nagaprasanna drew comparisons to the Proton Mail case, involving anonymous emails with morphed pornographic images. “The problem of anonymity remains,” he noted. In that instance, the Karnataka High Court directed blocking Proton Mail services in India under Section 69A, citing misuse for harassment and threats, which highlighted gaps in regulating anonymous platforms.
Raghavan conceded online misuse but pointed to offline parallels, citing a 2002 High Court contempt case over false media reporting, arguing that regulatory scrutiny should be consistent across mediums.
Advancing Arguments on AI and Regulatory Gaps
Mehta pressed further, presenting an AI-generated video example. “We have created an AI-generated video where Your Lordship appears to speak against the nation. It’s unlawful, but it doesn’t fit any category under Section 69A,” he told the court. Justice Nagaprasanna responded, “That is an unlawful AI-generated act.” Mehta advocated for proportionate responses: “Don’t block or jail them immediately. Just caution them,” he said, to which the judge agreed—but added, “Still, it remains unlawful.”
This exchange spotlighted regulatory grey areas where content harms public interest but falls outside Section 69A’s scope. Mehta argued platforms like X lose safe harbour under Section 79 if they ignore subsections (2) and (3), requiring due diligence and compliance. “If a citizen comes to court, the intermediary must defend its conduct. They may succeed, but they must face scrutiny,” he said.
Implications for Fundamental Rights and Online Regulation
At its heart, this dispute balances Article 19(1)(a)’s guarantee of free speech against reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) for public order and security. The Shreya Singhal judgment emphasized that content blocking must adhere to procedural safeguards to avoid chilling effects on expression. Section 79’s safe harbour shields intermediaries from third-party content liability, but only if they act neutrally and respond to valid notices—fostering innovation while protecting users’ rights to privacy and dignity.
Experts note that unchecked anonymity can infringe on Article 21’s right to life and liberty, including protection from defamation or harassment. The Proton Mail ruling exemplifies how courts are increasingly invoking Section 69A to curb such threats, potentially setting precedents for AI-driven misinformation.
Next Steps in the Ongoing Legal Saga
Raghavan later confirmed the fake account’s removal by X. The hearing, part of the Centre’s clash with X Corp over content moderation, is set to continue on July 25. This case could reshape how India regulates digital platforms, influencing global discussions on online accountability.
