Govt slams X in K'taka HC over plea against takedown orders
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told a bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna that X must join the Sahyog platform and comply with all takedown notices issued by designated authorities.
'In every other country, they follow the law. Only in India they expect these luxuries,' Mehta argued.
X has challenged the Union government's direction asking it to join Sahyog, contending that the portal opens the door for 'indiscriminate censorship.'
Senior advocate KG Raghavan, appearing for the social media company, cited a recent case where the Indian Railways asked X to remove a viral video of a woman driving on railway tracks in Telangana. The video had gone viral after the police revealed that the woman was attempting suicide.
Questioning how such content was unlawful, Raghavan claimed that under Sahyog portal, 'every Tom, Dick, and Harry' could issue takedown notices.
Mehta, however, objected to Raghavan's choice of words and said the officers sending such notices were the competent authority and the Union government will not tolerate anyone calling them names. Justice Nagaprasanna asked the senior counsel to exercise restraint, saying these were officers of the 'government of India' and had 'statutory powers.'
The Centre also reiterated that X has no legal right to challenge takedown orders. The government had previously told the court in an affidavit that social media intermediaries did not have the locus to fight for their users in court. It had also cautioned that if X resisted, it might lose safe harbour.
Section 79 of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, provides a safe harbour provision for intermediaries, such as X, shielding them from liability for third-party or user content they host or transmit, provided they comply with takedown requests within 36 hours of receiving official notice.
X has argued that this provision has been misused to create a parallel blocking mechanism that violates the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, which provides for orders for content removal only under a defined process established under the IT Act.
The high court posted the matter on July 8 for further hearing.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Additional rice: CM urges parties to protest against Centre's stance
Accusing the Union government of persisting with its anti-Kerala stance, Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on Wednesday said that even the State's demand for additional allocation of rice during the Onam season has been rejected. He made a call for a united protest of all political parties to correct the Centre's stance against Kerala. In a Facebook post, he said that the State had demanded that 5 kg of rice per card be made available to families with non-priority cards also at the rate of ₹8.30 currently being given to the State as a tide-over allocation. It has also demanded that the allotment of wheat, which was being given as a tide-over allocation till two years ago, be restored. To prevent the price of rice from soaring in the public market during special occasions like Onam, it is necessary to ensure the availability of food grains to the non-priority sections as much as possible. It is in this context that the State has demanded an additional rice allocation to be given to the non-priority sections. Studies indicate that a significant section of the State's population is suffering from diabetes. The State has made the demand for the restoration of the allotment of wheat to the non-priority sections considering this fact. However, the Union government has ruthlessly rejected these demands, said
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
2023 Parliament security breach: Delhi HC grants bail to two accused
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (July 2, 2025) granted bail to Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat, two accused in the 2023 Parliament security breach case, but barred them from talking about the incident to the press or on social media. A Bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar granted the reprieve on a personal bond of ₹50,000 each and two sureties. 'They shall not give interviews or make any statement regarding the case before the press or social media. They shall not leave Delhi and appear before the investigating agency every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday,' the court said. The accused had challenged a trial court's order rejecting their bail pleas. The trial court had found sufficient evidence to believe that the allegations were 'prima facie' true. Delhi Police had opposed the bail applications, alleging that the accused intended to bring back 'haunted memories' of the 2001 Parliament attack. The security breach occurred on December 13, 2023, coinciding with the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack. During the incident, the co-accused, Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D., allegedly jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the public gallery during Zero Hour. They released yellow gas from canisters and sloganeered before being overpowered by some MPs. Around the same time, another accused, Amol Shinde, and Ms. Azad allegedly sprayed coloured gas from canisters outside Parliament premises while shouting 'tanashahi nahi chalegi (dictatorship won't work)'. According to the police, preliminary inquiries revealed that Ms. Azad and Mr. Shinde were associates of Mr. Sharma and Mr. Manoranjan, and together carried out the terror act. Delhi Police had arrested Mr. Kumawat on December 16 on charges of criminal conspiracy and destruction of evidence. Earlier, the court had sought clarification from the police on whether the act of carrying or using a smoke canister within Parliament premises or outside would invoke provisions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and if such an act would come under the definition of terrorist activities.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
HC seeks reply in plea challenging Act on shacks
Panaji: The high court of Bombay at Goa sought a response from state and central authorities, as well as the Calangute MLA Michael Lobo, in a public interest petition challenging the validity of the Goa Erection of Shacks on Public Beaches (Regulation and Control) Act 2024. Petitioners Desmond Alvares and other environmental activists alleged that the Act is unconstitutional and ultra vires. They submitted that the Act, under the guise of regulating temporary shacks, permits the construction of permanent or semi-permanent structures on beaches, including ecologically sensitive areas such as sand dunes, which are classified as CRZ-1 (A) areas. The Act undermines coastal protection and public safety and lacks provisions for ensuring the structural stability and safety of constructions as it dispenses with critical requirements like structural stability certificates, local calculations and architect conformity letters, the petitioners submitted to the court. They added that the Act allows structures up to nine metres in height (G+2) without adequate safeguards, circumventing existing building regulations and the National Building Code. It also enables the construction of permanent structures under the guise of temporary ones, as evidenced by the use of steel structures with concrete foundations and lacks provisions for completion or occupancy certificates, which are essential to ensure that structures are safe for occupation, they further submitted. The division bench of the high court, comprising Justices Bharati Dangre and Nivedita Mehta, directed the petition to be listed on Aug 4.
