Latest news with #X'Corp

Hans India

HC hears X Corp's plea on content takedown notices, Centre defends officers' authority

Bengaluru: The High Court on Tuesday heard arguments in a case filed by X Corp India, the Indian arm of Elon Musk-owned social media platform 'X' (formerly Twitter), challenging the authority of government officials to issue content takedown notices under the Information Technology Act. 'X' Corp informed the court that it had recently received a notice from the Ministry of Railways seeking the removal of a video showing a woman driving a car on railway tracks in Hyderabad. Representing the company, Senior Advocate K G Raghavan argued against what he termed a misuse of official powers. 'What if every Tom, Dick and Harry officer sends me notices? See how this is being misused,' he said. Raghavan questioned whether such content qualified as unlawful, remarking, 'Some woman drove a car on railway tracks. Milords knows dog biting man is not news, but man biting dog is news.' Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union of India, objected strongly to the language used, stating, 'They are officers, not Tom, Dick and Harry. They are statutory functionaries with legal authority. International entities should not display such arrogance'. Mehta emphasised that no social media platform should expect to operate without regulation, noting that intermediaries follow laws in other countries and should do the same in India. Justice M Nagaprasanna also expressed disapproval of the remarks, affirming the stature of Union government officers and stating, 'I take objection to this. They are officers of the Union of India.' 'X' Corp has sought a judicial declaration that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act does not empower government officials to issue blocking orders, arguing that such orders must follow the procedure laid out in Section 69A of the Act, along with the relevant blocking rules. Additionally, the company has requested the court to prevent government ministries from taking coercive or adverse actions against it based on blocking orders not issued in accordance with the prescribed procedure.