Solicitor General Tushar Mehta Friday questioned the locus standi of X Corp to approach the Karnataka High Court under the aegis of the right to freedom of speech. He also raised the issue of internet anonymity by raising the example of a fake X account named ‘Supreme Court of Karnataka’.
X has been arguing in the high court that takedown orders should be issued under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, and not Section 79 (3) (b) of the same Act.
Section 69A lays out the grounds and power for a direction to be issued for any agency or intermediary to block certain content, while Section 79(3)(b) provides for removal of the usual protection granted to intermediaries such as X if unlawful material is not removed.
X Corp has also raised concerns regarding the Sahyog Portal for intermediaries, referring to it in an earlier hearing as a “censorship portal”.
Solicitor General Mehta also questioned the citing of the “chilling effect” on freedom of speech, and claimed X Corp could not take advantage of it, as it was only a right for users.
While concluding his submissions, he stated, “X has no locus standi to file the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, at least claiming Article 19(1)a rights (freedom of speech), or Article 14 rights (right to equality)… the petitioner is an out and out foreign commercial entity. The petitioner has a mere status of intermediary and no more. It is neither a citizen of India nor a natural person… It is for the individual citizens of the country to ventilate their fundamental rights.”
He had earlier stated on the topic of anonymity in the online medium, “We have opened one account in the name of the ‘Supreme Court of Karnataka’, and Twitter has opened that account… I can post anything in that, and lakhs of people will say that the Supreme Court of Karnataka has said it. I can remain anonymous or pseudonymous…”
Story continues below this ad
Senior Advocate K G Raghavan, who represents X, had raised objections to this, pointing out that it had not been put on the record.
He stated, “I am not on who created it, etc… I am only saying, if it is to be relied upon as part of a counsel’s submission…”
The judge said it had been taken only in the nature of an illustration, adding, “You can rest assured that this illustration will not prejudice.”
Raghavan later stated that the account in question had been taken down.
Story continues below this ad
Solicitor General Mehta also made submissions on the topic of the Sahyog Portal. On the question of whether even a metro engineer could be an authorised person to issue notices under the Sahyog Portal, he said, “He is a designated authority… it is not necessary that police persons are only the designated authority. If this type of situation arises… some authority will have to be designated in each department. What used to happen was anybody used to write a letter. Some police stations in Kolkata etc, would send a letter to Facebook… intermediaries came to us – if you have a portal, intermediaries will know that somebody has authorised this. And the Government will also know about the compliance. It is merely an administrative mechanism. Twitter has chosen not to join… rest of them (intermediaries) have joined the portal.”
Replies in the matter by Senior Advocate K G Raghavan are set to continue on July 25.