Latest news with #KGRaghavan
Time of India
6 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Govt bypassing safeguards under law to order content takedown: X tells HC
Microblogging platform X Corp said on Friday that the Indian government is using a 'smart and ingenious workaround' to avoid the legal safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in a 2015 order with respect to take down of content or blocking of social media would the Indian government follow the lengthy and complicated procedure of safeguards provided under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act when an easy path via Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules and the Sahyog Portal is available to issue content takedown notices, the company asked the Karnataka High Musk-owned X, formerly Twitter, has petitioned the high court challenging the way the government issues orders to take down union home ministry had developed the Sahyog portal to automate the process of sending notices to counsel KG Raghavan, appearing for X, said Rule 3(1)(d) effectively seeks to undo the apex court ruling in the 2015 Shreya Singhal case and must be struck down, because it undermines the safeguards provided in Section 69A of the IT Section 69A, content can be blocked only in the interest of sovereignty, security, public order, or similar grounds listed in Article 19(2) that deals with the fundamental right to freedom of speech expression. The process requires an inter-ministerial committee to review the request and provides affected parties an opportunity to be heard (except in emergencies), and records written reasons for the blocking noted that both Section 69A and Section 79 are administered by the ministry of electronics and information technology (MeitY), but only Section 69A includes procedural safeguards like an inter-ministerial committee, written orders and judicial of following that, he said, MeitY has chosen the easy path, using Rule 3(1)(d) to issue notices without statutory also questioned the legal validity of the Sahyog Portal. According to Raghavan, there is no notification or statutory provision authorising the portal's creation, yet intermediaries are being told to onboard via letters from government next hearing is on July 17 when the government will present its industry body Digipub, which represents 92 digital-first publishers and journalists, also made submissions supporting X's argued that the distinction between online and offline media cannot be used as a blanket justification to sidestep to it, the government has turned Section 79 (3)(b) of the IT Act, an exemption provision, into an empowerment provision, which neither the language of the Act nor the Rules support.'The creation of such a regime is, in itself, arbitrary,' Digipub submitted.
Time of India
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Sec 79 of IT Act permits officials to block content without institutional oversight: X to K'taka HC
In a significant development to the ongoing legal battle over content takedown directives, X Corp (formerly Twitter) informed the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday that Section 79 of the Information Technology (IT) Act permits government officers to block content without any institutional oversight. Senior Advocate K G Raghavan, appearing for X Corp, submitted before Justice N Nagaprasanna that the union government has empowered thousands of officers across various jurisdictions to issue takedown directions under Section 79 of the IT Act, each interpreting what constitutes "unlawful" or "immoral" content based on personal discretion. "Unlike Section 69A, which mandates a structured decision-making process through a committee and requires reasons to be recorded in writing, Section 79 permits individual officers to block content without any institutional oversight. This creates arbitrary, inconsistent enforcement and violates Article 14 of the Constitution," Raghavan argued. Raghavan asserted 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. He emphasised that if at all Section 79(3)(b) is considered a source of such power, it must be read in conjunction with the more procedural and restrained Section 69A. "Can a government officer pass a blocking order from the confines of their office without oversight? The answer is no. Such actions reduce the law to a matter of personal opinion - 'I say so, therefore it is so'," he said, warning against the "opaqueness and arbitrariness" of the current regime. He further noted that what is considered offensive in one region may be culturally accepted in another, underlining the lack of consistency and the dangers of subjective decision-making. X Corp also clarified that it does not seek immunity from Indian law. "We are not saying we are above the law. We are saying that procedural safeguards are missing under Section 79 that are otherwise present under Section 69A," Raghavan said, adding that the current interpretation of Section 79(3)(b) could expose the platform to criminal and civil liability, block enforcement, and punishment under Section 45 of the IT Act. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, Raghavan contended that the same standards for freedom of expression must apply across media, including the internet. However, Justice Nagaprasanna pointed out that the case was decided in the context of the 2011 Rules, which were replaced by the IT Rules 2021 -- rules not yet examined by the apex court. Raghavan responded by citing a Bombay High Court's ruling, where parts of the 2023 Amendment to the IT Rules -- specifically concerning Fact Check Units -- were struck down. He argued that Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 Rules, which allows the government to direct intermediaries to remove content, violates the separation of powers and lacks safeguards, and therefore must be struck down. While acknowledging that foreign entities are not covered by Article 19 of the Constitution, Raghavan emphasised that Article 14 -- ensuring equality before the law -- does apply. He argued that any law failing the test of procedural fairness under Article 14 is unconstitutional, regardless of the entity's nationality. Opposing X Corp's submissions, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the company's view was overly "X-centric" and that the government must also consider the perspective of the complainant and the nature of the platform. "If someone posts defamatory content and the intermediary fails to act on it, the aggrieved person is left with no immediate remedy. A traditional media house like the 'Times of India' would be held accountable. Shouldn't intermediaries, who enjoy safe harbour protection under Section 79(1), also have responsibilities?" Mehta asked. After hearing arguments through the day, the court scheduled the next hearing for July 11. The Centre is slated to present its full response on July 17.
India Today
09-07-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Officials act on whims and fancies in takedown orders: X to Karnataka High Court
X Corp told Karnataka High Court that Union government officers acted on their 'whims and fancies' during a hearing of its challenge petition against multiple content takedown orders, and the Centre's mandate to onboard the Sahyog for X Corp, Senior Advocate KG Raghavan argued that the Sahyog portal empowers individual government officers to issue blocking directions under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, without any institutional safeguards, Live Law Section 69A, which requires decision-making through a committee process, Section 79 allows a single officer to issue takedown directions at their whims and fancies,' he submitted. Raghavan compared the provision with Section 501 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which requires a court to decide on the destruction of offensive material. 'Under BNSS, a judicial officer adjudicates. Here, an executive officer without quasi-judicial powers takes that decision,' he said, calling it Nagaprasanna, hearing the matter, remarked that the nature of the medium, the internet, makes content more persistent and accessible than books or print media.'The internet never forgets. If it remains on one's broadcast, I may forget, you may forget, but the internet never forgets. That is the reason why it is asked to be taken down if it is unlawful or offensive,' he however, questioned whether such powers could be exercised without judicial oversight simply because the medium was online. He argued that differing interpretations of what is 'offensive' lead to arbitrariness, 'Can officers of the Union, based on their individual understanding and without any uniform standard, decide whether a particular post is unlawful or not?'Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the current mechanism, stating that intermediaries enjoy special exemptions under Section 79(1) of the IT Act but still have a duty to comply with takedown requests.X Corp's arguments are set to continue on July 11.- EndsTrending Reel IN THIS STORY#Karnataka
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Govt officials acting on 'whims and fancies', X tells Karnataka HC
X Corp (formerly Twitter) on Tuesday told the Karnataka High Court that central government officers were directing the platform to block content under Section 79 of the IT Act as per their "whims and fancies." Senior Advocate KG Raghavan, appearing for X Corp, told Justice N. Nagprasanna that thousands of officers appointed by the Union across the country, each with their subjective understanding of online content, were making decisions within their respective jurisdictions under Section 79. This results in arbitrary and inconsistent content regulation, he argued. "Unlike Section 69A, which requires decision-making through a committee process, Section 79 allows a single officer to issue takedown directions without any institutional safeguards. This is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution... Across the country, thousands of officers, each with their subjective understanding of what is lawful or moral, are making such decisions as per their own whims and fancies. There is no coordination or uniformity among these government officers, and that amounts to arbitrariness," he told the court. Raghavan further argued that Section 79(3)(b) cannot serve as an independent or standalone source of power to block content, especially in the absence of procedural safeguards that are embedded in Section 69A. He further emphasized that Section 79(3)(b) does not, in itself, confer blocking powers on the executive. Referring to Section 69A of the IT Act, Raghavan said it provided a structured regime that requires satisfaction of necessity on limited grounds (such as sovereignty, public order, security of state, etc.), mandates reasons to be recorded in writing, and ensures procedural checks and balances, which is absent in Section 79(3)(b), where an officer or agency takes the decisions. While the platform has "no intention to injure public interest," Section 79(3)(b) could not be read in isolation as a standalone power to bypass these safeguards under Section 69A, Raghavan told the court. "Can a blocking order be passed from the confines of a government officer's room? The answer is no… It becomes a case of 'I say so, therefore it is so.' The officer's decision is treated as final, and if I don't obey, I lose my protection (safe harbour) under Section 79(1) IT Act," he said. Raghavan also told the court that the Union Government consistently argues that Section 79(3)(b) is distinct from Section 69A and not subject to its procedural discipline. This effectively enables the executive to issue content-blocking directions without any statutory or judicial oversight, which is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, he said. The benefits of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal judgment for testing the validity of a law and on Sections 69A and 79, and the procedural safeguards must be ensured for X Corp, he said. Opposing X's plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the arguments made by X Corp's counsel have been advanced from "an X-centric perspective." He said that the Union Government must look at the issue from the standpoint of an intermediary. "Suppose a defamatory post is published against me. The government informs the intermediary that the content is defamatory and asks for its removal under Rule 3(1)(d). If the content is not taken down, and I approach the court, Twitter can claim (before the Court) that it is merely a platform and cannot be held liable. But compare this with a press owner, say, the Times of India. I say that Twitter, or any intermediary, enjoys a special exemption under Section 79(1) of the IT Act. The nature of the medium matters," he said. The court then listed the hearing for July 11, with the Union's arguments set to be heard on July 17. The high court is hearing X's plea against the Centre, claiming unlawful content regulation and arbitrary action through the Sahyog Portal. Union's Opposition: The Centre, in its affidavit before the high court, vehemently denied that ministries were issuing notifications at the behest of MeitY. It explained that many government departments/ministries have a National Informatics Centre (NIC) office or officer deputed only for ease of functioning related to IT infrastructure, which is managed by NIC at the national level. This does not mean that NIC is directing the functioning of all ministries, departments, and courts, the Centre said. The lifting of safe harbour could in no way be equated to the blocking of information, the central government added. X's reliance on the Kunal Kamra case was also misplaced because Article 19 pertains to the rights of users of intermediary platforms, not the intermediary itself, the Centre argued.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Central govt officers block content as per 'whims and fancies': X to HC
X Corp argues before the Karnataka High Court that arbitrary content blocking under Section 79 of the IT Act by government officers violates constitutional safeguards New Delhi X Corp (formerly Twitter) on Tuesday told the Karnataka High Court that central government officers were directing the platform to block content under Section 79 of the IT Act as per their "whims and fancies." Senior Advocate KG Raghavan, appearing for X Corp, told Justice N. Nagprasanna that thousands of officers appointed by the Union across the country, each with their subjective understanding of online content, were making decisions within their respective jurisdictions under Section 79. This results in arbitrary and inconsistent content regulation, he argued. "Unlike Section 69A, which requires decision-making through a committee process, Section 79 allows a single officer to issue takedown directions without any institutional safeguards. This is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution... Across the country, thousands of officers, each with their subjective understanding of what is lawful or moral, are making such decisions as per their own whims and fancies. There is no coordination or uniformity among these government officers, and that amounts to arbitrariness," he told the court. Referring to Section 69A of the IT Act, Raghavan said it provided a structured regime that requires satisfaction of necessity on limited grounds (such as sovereignty, public order, security of state, etc.), mandates reasons to be recorded in writing, and ensures procedural checks and balances, which is absent in Section 79(3)(b), where an officer or agency takes the decisions. While the platform has "no intention to injure public interest," Section 79(3)(b) could not be read in isolation as a standalone power to bypass these safeguards under Section 69A, Raghavan told the court. "Can a blocking order be passed from the confines of a government officer's room? The answer is no… It becomes a case of 'I say so, therefore it is so.' The officer's decision is treated as final, and if I don't obey, I lose my protection (safe harbour) under Section 79(1) IT Act," he said. Raghavan also told the court that the Union Government consistently argues that Section 79(3)(b) is distinct from Section 69A and not subject to its procedural discipline. This effectively enables the executive to issue content-blocking directions without any statutory or judicial oversight, which is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, he said. The benefits of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal judgment for testing the validity of a law and on Sections 69A and 79, and the procedural safeguards must be ensured for X Corp, he said. Opposing X's plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the arguments made by X Corp's counsel have been advanced from "an X-centric perspective." He said that the Union Government must look at the issue from the standpoint of an intermediary. "Suppose a defamatory post is published against me. The government informs the intermediary that the content is defamatory and asks for its removal under Rule 3(1)(d). If the content is not taken down, and I approach the court, Twitter can claim (before the Court) that it is merely a platform and cannot be held liable. But compare this with a press owner, say, the Times of India. I say that Twitter, or any intermediary, enjoys a special exemption under Section 79(1) of the IT Act. The nature of the medium matters," he said. The court then listed the hearing for July 11, with the Union's arguments set to be heard on July 17. The high court is hearing X's plea against the Centre, claiming unlawful content regulation and arbitrary action through the Sahyog Portal. Union's Opposition: The Centre, in its affidavit before the high court, vehemently denied that ministries were issuing notifications at the behest of MeitY. It explained that many government departments/ministries have a National Informatics Centre (NIC) office or officer deputed only for ease of functioning related to IT infrastructure, which is managed by NIC at the national level. This does not mean that NIC is directing the functioning of all ministries, departments, and courts, the Centre said. The lifting of safe harbour could in no way be equated to the blocking of information, the central government added. X's reliance on the Kunal Kamra case was also misplaced because Article 19 pertains to the rights of users of intermediary platforms, not the intermediary itself, the Centre argued.
