E-Paper
SG sets up fake X handle during hearing in HC to prove misinfo point, company deletes account
Mehta showed Justice M Nagaprasanna a fake account with the court’s photo and official-looking handle to highlight how easily false content spreads online.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta created a fake X account named “Supreme Court of Karnataka” and presented it to the Karnataka high court on Friday to demonstrate online misinformation risks — only to have the platform suspend the fictional handle by the time the hearing ended.
Mehta handed his mobile phone to justice M Nagaprasanna to show the fake account, complete with the court’s photograph and official-looking handle, arguing it proved how easily false content could spread online.
“We have opened one account in the name of Supreme Court of Karnataka. And Twitter (X) has opened that account. And it is a verified account by Twitter (X)... now I can post anything in that, and lakhs and lakhs of people who view that account will say Supreme Court of Karnataka has said this,” Mehta told the court.
The demonstration was meant to underscore the need for stronger government oversight of social media platforms. In response, X Corp’s counsel, senior advocate KG Raghavan, questioned the propriety of creating fake handles without officially placing them on record.
Then, as the two-hour hearing concluded, Raghavan announced X had already suspended the fictional account.
“Just to end on a good note, that account has been suspended. We are a responsible organisation,” Raghavan told the court, much to the amusement of the bench. He also clarified that contrary to the solicitor general’s claim, the account was not verified by X.
Mehta clarified the account was “purely representational” for “demonstrative purposes” with no posts made from it, but used the episode to advance broader arguments about user anonymity and platform accountability.
“If a user posts illegal content and is anonymous, who will the aggrieved party sue? X Corp has no officers in India except a grievance officer. Where is the accountability?” he asked.
The courtroom drama unfolded during X’s legal challenge to the Union government’s Sahyog portal, which the company calls a “censorship portal” that bypasses constitutional safeguards. X argues the portal allows thousands of government officials to issue content takedown orders without proper oversight.
Mehta criticised X for resisting Indian regulatory frameworks while complying with local laws elsewhere. “All other intermediaries have joined the Sahyog portal. Only X Corp has refused. They object to even a non-binding mechanism,” he said.
The government has revealed that 38 intermediaries including Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Telegram have joined the portal, with Meta currently testing integration. X remains the most prominent holdout.
The government created Sahyog portal to handle notices under Section 79(3)(b) for quick action against illegal online content. The portal is meant to streamline the process by allowing a number of authorised officials— at the state and central levels — to dispatch notices to intermediaries who are onboarded onto the platform.
The solicitor general also challenged X’s fundamental right to bring the case, arguing the platform lacked legal standing as a foreign company not incorporated in India. The government contended that constitutional protections under Articles 14, 19, and 21 extend primarily to Indian citizens and, in certain cases, to entities incorporated within the country.
Additionally, Mehta dismissed X’s free speech arguments, contending the platform cannot invoke constitutional protections since it claims to be merely an intermediary. “They say they are not speakers or authors of the posts, only intermediaries. If that is true, how can they invoke free speech rights?” he asked.
The case stems from X’s March petition challenging the government’s directive mandating social media platforms join the Sahyog portal. The company argues the government is creating parallel blocking mechanisms under Section 79(3)(b) that bypass safeguards required under Section 69A, which the Supreme Court upheld in the landmark Shreya Singhal case.
X has previously objected to what its lawyers called takedown orders from “every Tom, Dick, and Harry” government official, drawing sharp criticism from government representatives.
The Karnataka High Court will hear the case next on July 25, when X will file its rejoinder submissions.
