New Delhi, July 18 — As India grapples with an increasingly complex digital ecosystem, the Union Government has strongly defended its content takedown directives in a case filed by X Corp (formerly Twitter) in the Karnataka High Court. The Centre highlighted the urgent need for tighter regulation in response to growing concerns over surveillance, cybercrime, and the role of tech platforms.
Credits: Times Now
“We Are Constantly Being Watched”: Centre Flags Digital Surveillance
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, painted a stark picture of modern digital life. “Today, even a smart TV with a camera is a potential surveillance tool,” he told the court. Stressing the scale of constant surveillance by social media and smart devices, Mehta said many public figures now ask visitors to leave phones outside to prevent recording.
He warned that platforms like X, while revolutionary in nature, also amplify risks in the digital age. “We are being continuously monitored by social media,” he stated, calling for a legal response that matches the evolving threat landscape.
X Corp Challenges Takedown Process
X Corp has contested the government’s approach to content blocking, specifically challenging the applicability of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act. According to the platform, takedown orders must be issued via Section 69A read with the IT Rules 2009, which includes due process. The company argues that direct instructions under Section 79 bypass procedural safeguards and infringe on the freedom of expression.
But the government disagreed.
“X is Not a Citizen, Can’t Claim Article 19”: Govt Counters Free Speech Argument
A key flashpoint in the case is whether platforms like X can claim protection under Article 19 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression. Mehta firmly rejected the idea.
“X is simply a notice board. Only those who post content can claim Article 19 protections,” he said. He referred to the Supreme Court’s 2015 verdict in Shreya Singhal v Union of India, which upheld that while users have free speech rights, platforms must comply with content moderation in the public interest.
Safe Harbour Not Without Responsibility
The Solicitor General also clarified the scope of Section 79, often seen as a “safe harbour” clause shielding intermediaries from liability. “It is not a penal provision,” Mehta noted. “It is a protective exception that platforms lose if they fail to act on court or government orders.”
He cited Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules 2021, which mandates intermediaries to remove unlawful content when notified. Non-compliance, he added, strips platforms of their immunity, reinforcing the need for accountability.
Alarming Cybercrime Surge Justifies Tighter Control
Backing the need for stringent oversight, Mehta presented shocking statistics: cybercrime complaints in India jumped from 26,000 in 2019 to over 22.6 lakh in 2024—a 401% surge.
“This massive increase shows that the internet is facing threats that endanger individuals, communities, and the nation,” he said. According to him, the situation demands a coordinated response involving government agencies, law enforcement, platforms, and civil society.
AI, Algorithms and Amplification: The Dark Side of Tech
Mehta also raised concerns about the growing influence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and algorithmic content amplification. Referring to platforms like YouTube, he said users are often nudged into viewing certain content repeatedly, not because of merit, but due to curated algorithmic preferences.
“The platform itself amplifies content through sequencing. If you keep watching something, it starts appearing more often. That’s not neutrality—it’s engineered exposure,” he explained.
The bench acknowledged that digital platforms are not passive conduits but are built to enhance engagement, often at the cost of neutrality.
What Lies Ahead
The Karnataka High Court bench observed the legal and technological complexities involved in the matter and agreed to continue hearing the case. The next hearing is scheduled for July 18 (Friday).
As India’s legal battle over digital accountability unfolds, this case could set a precedent for how far platforms can go in resisting regulatory oversight—and what responsibilities they must uphold in a digitally interconnected world.
