Karnataka HC allows X to amend plea seeking scrapping of content takedown provision
Empower your mind, elevate your skills
Microblogging site X (formerly Twitter) has made a plea to amend its petition filed in the Karnataka High Court four months ago, making an additional demand to scrap Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology Rules that empowers government agencies to order intermediaries to remove content from their platforms.The original petition, filed in March, had sought the court to declare that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000 does not authorise the government to issue information blocking orders to intermediaries, or social media platforms, like X.Section 79(3)(b) provides for authorities to remove immunity from liability accorded to intermediaries if they failed to comply with orders to take down unlawful content. In conjunction with Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, it also allows them to issue takedown orders.On Tuesday, senior counsel KG Raghavan, appearing for X, informed Justice M Nagaprasanna of the high court that he had filed a plea to amend the original petition. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who represented the government, said he has filed objections based on the merits of the proposed amendment but has no objections in allowing the petition to be amended.In a written statement filed on June 30, the government opposed challenging the constitutionality of the rule at 'this late stage'.Justice Nagaprasanna allowed X to file its amended petition in two days and fixed July 8 for the final hearing.X is seeking the court to declare Rule 3(1)(d) unconstitutional for being ultra vires (exceeding the remit) of the IT Act, or at least read it down and to declare that it does not grant the state any blocking powers. It also wants the court to hold that the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre 's (I4C) Sahyog portal is ultra vires of the IT Act and/or is unconstitutional.The union home ministry had developed the Sahyog portal to automate the process of sending notices to intermediaries by the government or its agencies.In its March petition, X also sought protection for not joining the Sahyog portal as well as not complying with the notices sent via the portal. It had also argued that the government could issue content takedown orders only under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000 and not Section 79(3)(b).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
Kamala Harris is back, urges Americans to call their representatives and block Trump's Big, Beautiful Bill
After months of relative silence, former US vice president Kamala Harris has re-emerged with a pointed political message, as she urges Americans to take action against US president Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' as per her social media post on X (previously Twitter). Kamala Harris Breaks Silence to Oppose Sweeping GOP Bill She wrote a post on X Tuesday evening, just hours after the Senate narrowly cleared the sweeping legislation, Harris broke her public silence to denounce the GOP megabill, with her message to her followers to call their representatives to "vote no," to stop it before it becomes law, according to The Hill report. Harris highlighted about Trump's massive tax and spending budget bill's cuts to several welfare programs in her X post. The former vice president wrote, "Thanks to Senate Republicans, 17 million people will lose their health care. Thanks to Senate Republicans, rural hospitals will close. Thanks to Senate Republicans, three million Americans, including veterans and seniors, will lose food assistance. Thanks to Senate Republicans, families will see their energy bills go up by $400 a year," as per her X post. Thanks to Senate Republicans, 17 million people will lose their health care. Thanks to Senate Republicans, rural hospitals will close. Thanks to Senate Republicans, three million Americans, including veterans and seniors, will lose food assistance. Thanks to Senate… — Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) July 1, 2025 ALSO READ: Is US private sector crumbling? ADP says June sees first job losses in over a year Live Events Slashing Programs to Fund Billionaire Tax Cuts? She pointed out that the "Senate Republicans are doing all of this and more — hurting working people across our nation — in order to pay for $1 trillion in tax cuts for billionaires," as quoted in her social media post on Tuesday. A Call to Action: 'Vote No' Harris even suggested that, "There is still time to stop this bill before it passes in the House. Call 202-224-3121 and tell your representative to vote no," as per her X post. ALSO READ: Nvidia insiders cash out over $1 billion as AI stock soars, $500 million sold just last month - what it means Could a California Governor Run Be Next for Kamala Harris? Her social media post is her first public comment about the bill and comes after Harris has kept a low profile since the November election, although there are rumours and speculations that she is interested in a run for California governor, as reported by The Hill. Other Democrats Also Oppose Trump's Big Beautiful Bill She is the latest to join a chorus of Democrats who are angry over the bill's passage and who are vowing to continue fighting as it heads back to the US House of Representatives, according to the report. ALSO READ: US Dollar has worst start since 1973 - key reasons behind the stunning slide Tense Senate Vote Ends With VP JD Vance's Tie-Breaker Vote Harris' remarks came following the bill narrowly clearing the Senate, which is the upper chamber of Congress, on Tuesday, after vice president JD Vance cast a tie-breaking vote, ending the 24 hours of debate and resistance from some Republican senators, according to a BBC report. FAQs Why is Kamala Harris speaking out now? She's breaking her silence to oppose Trump's budget bill, which she believes will seriously hurt everyday Americans, as per the report. What's in the 'big, beautiful bill' she's talking about? It's a massive GOP tax and spending package that includes deep cuts to welfare programs like health care, food aid, and energy subsidies, as per The Hill report.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Kanye West blocked from entering Australia over Hitler song
American rapper Kanye West has been blocked from entering Australia over the release of his song 'Heil Hitler', which glorifies Nazism and Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, Australia's Home Affairs Minister confirmed on Wednesday. The controversial track came months after the rapper, also known as Ye, made several antisemitic posts online — including declaring 'I love Hitler' and calling himself 'a Nazi' on X (formerly Twitter). While those earlier remarks did not lead to immediate action, Home affairs minister Tony Burke revealed that his department had cancelled West's valid visa after the song was released in early May. 'If someone argued that anti-Semitism was rational, I would not let them come here,' Burke said, while bringing up West's case. '[West] has been coming to Australia for a long time… and he's made a lot of offensive comments. But my officials looked at it again once he released the Heil Hitler song, and he no longer has a valid visa in Australia.' 'It was a lower-level visa, and the officials still looked at the law and said if you're going to have a song and promote that sort of Nazism, we don't need that in Australia,' Burke told ABC News. 'We have enough problems in this country already without deliberately importing bigotry.' Ye has longstanding personal ties to Australia. He married Bianca Censori, an Australian architect, in December 2022, and has visited the country frequently. Burke declined to specify when exactly the visa was cancelled. Ye's team has not responded to requests for comment. It was also not clear if West has been permanently banned from Australia. This is not the first time Australia has blocked entry over controversial speech. In October 2024, US conservative influencer Candace Owens was also denied a visa. At the time, Burke remarked: 'Australia's national interest is best served when Candace Owens is somewhere else.' Despite global backlash, Heil Hitler amassed millions of views shortly after its May 8 release. Ye later attempted damage control by releasing a reworked version of the track titled Hallelujah, swapping references to Nazism with lyrics referencing Christianity.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Madras HC strikes down MHA's phone tap order, says law does not permit tapping for secret crime probes
In a significant verdict delivered on Wednesday, the Madras High Court quashed a 2011 phone-tapping order issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), ruling that the surveillance violated the right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In his judgement, Justice N Anand Venkatesh observed that 'the law, as it stands today, does not permit the tapping of telephonic conversations or messages for the purpose of covert operations or secretive situations aimed at the detection of crimes.' In the 94-page order, the court added that 'phone tapping, as such, constitutes a violation of the right to privacy of an individual, unless it was justified by a procedure established by law.' The case concerned petitioner P Kishore, former managing director of Everonn Education Ltd., who challenged the MHA's order dated August 12, 2011, which had authorised the interception of his mobile phone under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Rule 419-A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. The surveillance was ordered in connection with a CBI investigation involving an alleged Rs 50 lakh bribe to a senior Income Tax official. The court made it clear that the state's justification for surveillance — the need to detect corruption — did not meet the legal threshold required to invade an individual's privacy through phone tapping. 'In the instant case, the impugned (under challenge) order does not fall either within the ambit of public emergency or the interest of public safety as explained by the Supreme Court in PUCL case,' Justice Venkatesh wrote, referring to the 1997 People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India verdict, which laid down detailed guidelines for lawful phone interception. The judge noted that the right to privacy, once seen as nebulous and secondary, had evolved into a fundamental right since the 2017 nine-judge bench ruling in K S Puttaswamy v. Union of India. 'The facts of the case disclose that it was a covert operation or a secretive situation for detection of a crime which would not be apparent to any reasonable person. As the law presently stands, a situation of this nature does not fall within the four corners of Section 5(2) of the Act as expounded by the Supreme Court in PUCL which has been approved by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in K S Puttuswamy's case,' the judge wrote. The court laid out the conditions under which phone tapping can be lawfully carried out: either during a 'public emergency' or in the 'interest of public safety.' Neither of these conditions, the judge said, were secretive or abstract; they must be apparent to any reasonable person, as clarified by the Supreme Court in PUCL. The intercepted conversations were also not placed before the Review Committee, as mandated by Rule 419-A of the Telegraph Rules — a procedural safeguard designed to protect against executive overreach. The court held that such non-compliance rendered the entire act of surveillance unconstitutional. 'As a consequence… the impugned order dated August 12, 2011, must necessarily be set aside as unconstitutional and one without jurisdiction,' the court said. The CBI, in its defence, had contended that the surveillance was lawful and carried out to investigate corruption involving public officials — a matter of public interest. The agency argued that the alleged Rs 50 lakh bribe given by Kishore, who was the second accused in the case, to an Income Tax officer, the first accused, through an intermediary was sufficient cause for tapping phone conversations to prevent the commission of an offence. But the judge rejected this line of reasoning, saying the scope of Section 5(2) cannot be expanded to cover secretive investigations, no matter how grave the offence. According to the CBI's case, a search was conducted at the premises of Everonn Education Ltd, where unaccounted income was allegedly discovered. The CBI alleged that the senior tax official demanded a bribe of Rs 50 lakh to help the company avoid penalties. Surveillance was approved to monitor the communication between the accused. While Rs 50 lakh in cash was allegedly recovered from a car linked to the tax officer and a friend, the petitioner was not present during the seizure, nor was the money found in his possession. 'It should be noted that it is not the case of the CBI that the petitioner (the second accused) was present on the spot at that time or that the money was seized from him,' the order said. The surveillance order was signed by the Union Home Secretary and granted to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Kishore initially challenged the phone tapping in a criminal petition in 2014, which was dismissed on technical grounds. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in 2018 after the court granted liberty to challenge the order before the proper forum. The court order detailed the evolution of the right to privacy, tracing its journey from early British common law to landmark US Supreme Court cases like Katz v. United States, and culminating in the Indian apex court's interpretation in Puttaswamy. Justice Venkatesh, citing the Maneka Gandhi ruling, reiterated that any 'procedure established by law' curtailing fundamental rights must be just, fair, and reasonable. 'A valuable constitutional right can be canalised only by civilised processes,' the order said.
