Social media monitors us constantly, need to regulate: Centre tells Karnataka HC in X Corp case
(You can now subscribe to our
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel
There was an urgent need for regulation in the digital space, due to the constant surveillance by social media, rising cybercrime, and the evolving threat landscape, the Centre told the Karnataka High Court during a hearing on the X Corp (formerly Twitter) case over content takedown directives.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union Government, argued that internet intermediaries like 'X' must act responsibly and cannot claim the same constitutional rights as individuals.The hearing, before Justice N Nagaprasanna, pertained to X Corp's challenge to the applicability of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act. It had earlier contended that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, often used to justify takedown directives, cannot serve as an independent source of executive power to block content.It said that blocking orders can only be issued through due process under Section 69A read with the IT Rules and not via direct instructions under Section 79.Highlighting the extent of digital surveillance , Mehta told the court: "Today, even a smart TV with a camera is a potential surveillance tool. Many public figures ask visitors to leave their phones outside because these devices have effectively become recorders. We are being continuously monitored by social media," he said.The Solicitor General also touched upon the growing influence of Artificial Intelligence, calling it a developmental boon but also a potential hazard.He noted that legal frameworks must evolve to address the threats posed by technological advances.Dismissing X Corp's claim that it enjoys rights under Article 19 ( Freedom of Speech and Expression), Mehta asserted that such protections are reserved for individuals, not platforms."X is simply a notice board. Only those who post content can claim Article 19 protections," he said, adding that the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v Union of India had clarified that content on public platforms can be regulated in public interest.Addressing the issue of intermediary liability , Mehta referred to Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules 2021, which requires intermediaries to remove unlawful content upon government or court notification. Failure to comply results in the loss of "safe harbour", a legal immunity provided under Section 79 of the IT Act.He clarified that Section 79 is not a penal provision, but a protective exception that intermediaries lose if they ignore legal notices. "Section 79 is an exception to the rule. You can't claim exemption without accountability," Mehta argued.Backing the government's push for regulation, Mehta said cybercrime complaints in the country rose from around 26,000 in 2019 to over 22.6 lakh in 2024--a staggering 401 per cent increase."This massive surge shows the internet is facing threats that endanger individuals, communities, and the nation. A coordinated response involving law enforcement, platforms, and regulators is essential," he said.Referring to a recent Supreme Court observation in the Ranveer Allahbadia case, Mehta stressed the need to regulate vulgar and harmful content while protecting free speech."The platform itself amplifies content through algorithmic sequencing. If you watch something repeatedly on YouTube, it appears on top--this is curated amplification," he said.The bench acknowledged that digital platforms are designed to boost user engagement through algorithmic preference and noted that such mechanisms raise questions about the neutrality of intermediaries.The case will be heard again on July 18.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Time of India
Amicus counters government stand, says it violates right to autonomy
NEW DELHI: Opposing the government's firm stand not to lower the age of consent below 18 years, amicus curiae and senior advocate Indira Jaising told Supreme Court that it criminalised "consensual sexual activity between children in the age group of 16-18 years, and violated their right to autonomy". Presenting a counter to Centre's stand in the case, Jaising said the age of consent was static at 16 years for 80 years and "neither any rational reason was given justifying the increase to 18 years nor was there any data to suggest that the age of consent required any increase". "Until enactment of Pocso Act , there was no law dealing with sexual offences against children. The newly enacted Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, in Section 63, has kept a legislative scheme similar to the one in Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013, that amended IPC to increase the age of consent to 18 years," she said. Jaising said increase in age of consent violated right of autonomy of children in 16-18 age group, who could give mature consent to sexual activity given the fact that they had attained puberty and, consequentially, sexual awareness. However, she put in an important caveat. "This brief does not suggest that anyone above the age of 18 who has sex with another below the age of 18 be decriminalised," she said. "Scientific research indicates that adolescents are attaining puberty sooner than they did several years ago and puberty as we know, is the age of awakening of sexual awareness. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo It is the age during which there is a natural attraction between the sexes and development of sexual relationships of choice," Jaising said, adding, "Hence, to criminalise such an activity rather than addressing the issue of sex education, is arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the best interests of children as defined in law. " Jaising requested SC to "declare that any consensual sexual activity between children of the ages of 16-18 constitutes an exception to penal provisions of the statute as being 'close in age', non-abusive and non-exploitative". Increasing the age of consent has led to branding hundreds of children in the 16-18 age group as criminals, she said, adding, "Data also indicates that most complaints to police are filed by parents of the girl, often against her own wishes and for extraneous reasons such as inter-religious relationships or inter-caste relationships. "Consensual sexual relations between adolescents in the 16-18 age bracket need not necessarily result in marriage, but on the contrary, criminalising such sexual behaviour will result in children eloping and getting married to avoid being prosecuted by Pocso." She suggested to the court that the law as it stands requires to be read down to include a 'close in age' exception when the sexual activity is consensual.
Time of India
27 minutes ago
- Time of India
Age of consent for sex cannot be less than 18 years, Centre tells SC
NEW DELHI: Union government has told Supreme Court that the age of consent for sex cannot be lowered from 18 years, as it is meant to protect minors from sexual abuse, often by relatives, but conceded that judicial discretion can be exercised on a case-by-case basis in instances of adolescent romantic and physical relationships. "The statutory age of consent fixed at 18 years must be strictly and uniformly enforced. Any departure from this standard, even in the name of reform or adolescent autonomy, would amount to rolling back decades of progress in child protection law, and undermine the deterrent character of laws like Pocso Act , 2012, and BNS," it said. Centre said the constitutional framework unequivocally supported the legal presumption that a person below 18 years of age was incapable of giving valid and informed consent to sexual activity. "Loosening age-based protections could open avenues for abuse (rape) under the guise of consensual (sexual) activity," it said. In a comprehensive written submission settled by additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati, the Centre detailed how the age of consent increased from 10 years in Indian Penal Code, 1860; to 12 years under the Age of Consent Act, 1891; 14 years in an amendment to IPC in 1925 and Sharda Act (Child Marriage Restraint law) of 1929; to 16 years in a 1940 amendment to IPC and 18 years in 1978 through amendment to Child Marriage Restraint Act which has remained in force till date. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Indonesia: New Container Houses (Prices May Surprise You) Container House | Search ads Search Now Undo "The age of consent under Indian law, fixed at 18 years, represents a carefully considered legislative choice aimed at creating a non-negotiable protective framework for children. This flows from the inherent protection provided to children envisaged under the Constitution of India," govt said. It added that the judiciary, on a case-by-case basis, could exercise discretion, including the close-in-age exception for those nearing 18 years and engaged in adolescence romance. "The legislative framework governing child sexual offences, particularly under Pocso Act, 2012, is premised not only on the vulnerability of the child due to age, but also on the recognition that a majority of such offences are committed by persons within the child's immediate environment of trust, including family members, neighbours, caregivers and teachers. Such perpetrators have a strong influence on the authority and agency of the minors," Centre said. It said data collated by National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and NGOs like Save the Children and HAQ Centre for Child Rights, indicated that over 50% of sexual offences against children were perpetrated by persons known to the child or those who were trusted by the minors. Lowering the age of consent from 18 years, under the guise of adolescent romance, would be legally unsound and provide a defence to the abusers, who exploit the minor's emotional dependence or silence, govt said. "A child's inability to report or resist is exacerbated when the perpetrator is a parent or close family member. In such cases, presenting 'consent' as a defence only victimises the child, shifts the blame onto them, and undermines the very object of Pocso Act to protect children from exploitation regardless of whether they were 'willing," it said. Govt said the existing age of consent (18 years) must not be tinkered with by the court as it was specified in several legislations to "protect the bodily integrity of children and uphold the constitutional and statutory safeguards accorded to them".
Time of India
33 minutes ago
- Time of India
T trying to break 50% quota cap, BJP a hindrance: Rahul
Hyderabad: Leader of the opposition in Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi on Thursday called on all Congress MPs to inform citizens about Telangana's caste survey and how the BJP was trying to "stall the state's progress". He said the Telangana govt was attempting to break free of the 50% cap on reservation, both in local bodies and in govt jobs and educational institutions. "Telangana chief minister Revanth Reddy's job is to use the data to transform the lives of the people of Telangana, and our job is to raise the issue in Parliament and help him push the idea of breaking the 50% reservation cap barrier," Rahul said while speaking during Revanth's presentation on the socio-economic survey at Indira Bhawan in New Delhi on Thursday. The PowerPoint presentation was attended by AICC president Mallikarjun Kharge, MP Priyanka Gandhi, and many other top leaders of the Congress. Rahul said the Congress govt in Telangana had sent a note on the amendment to Parliament, both to the Govt of India and to the President of India. But, he alleged, the Centre was reluctant to take up the issue as if it would destroy BJP's brand of politics. You Can Also Check: Hyderabad AQI | Weather in Hyderabad | Bank Holidays in Hyderabad | Public Holidays in Hyderabad He also remarked that the national census and caste census being taken up by the Centre would not be a fair exercise as it would reveal the real situation of OBCs and Adivasis. The Congress leader also said his party had been correctly raising Dalit and Adivasi issues nationally for more than a decade. He felt many of his own leaders may not agree with him, but more needed to be done on voicing concerns of the OBCs. Rahul also praised Revanth for completing the caste survey in Telangana. "When I started to push the idea of a caste census, I thought it would be difficult for Revanth as CM, as his community (Reddy) might not appreciate it. I was observing carefully. Today, I told the expert committee that Revanth Reddy ji and other leaders exceeded my expectations. They not only did the caste census, but did it exceptionally well," Rahul Gandhi said. He said they not only completed the survey, but also executed it in the right spirit, marking a milestone in social justice in the country. "The Telangana govt showed the country how the national caste census should be done. The census should not be conducted within closed rooms. Every section of society was taken into consideration, and every household was covered," the Congress leader said. The Telangana govt has 21st century data which is powerful enough to target the needy in executing education and health policies. No other state in the country has that data, and for obvious reasons, the BJP may not like it, he said.
