E-Paper
X Corp’s conduct a deliberate act of non-cooperation: SG Mehta
Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta called X’s conduct a “deliberate act” of non-cooperation and said the same hampers the government’s efforts to address “threats to public order and national security.”
Bengaluru The Union government on Thursday told the Karnataka high court that social media platform, X Corp’s, refusal to join the Sahyog portal for takedown communications, may attract legal consequences, including the loss of safe harbour protection and prosecution under the Information Technology Act.
Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta called X’s conduct a “deliberate act” of non-cooperation and said the same hampers the government’s efforts to address “threats to public order and national security.”
“The Petitioner (X Corp), cannot be in rank non-compliance with the laws of the land, and thereafter seek refuge under writ jurisdiction under the Constitution of India,” Mehta said.
The government told a bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna that the safe harbour provision under Section 79 that protects social media platforms from liability for content posted by users, is not a constitutional guarantee but a statutory privilege, specifically designed to foster responsible conduct.” Intermediaries therefore, must show due diligence and act quickly on notices about illegal content, for failure to comply will mean losing this protection, it said.
“The Petitioner’s attempt to present safe harbour as an absolute right, devoid of any corresponding duties, fundamentally misconstrues the very basis of this legal protection,” Mehta said.
Mehta also claimed that X Corp was wrongly mixing up the purposes of Sections 79 and Section 69A of the IT Act and Rule 3(1)(d). While Section 69A deals with blocking content and carries serious penalties for non-compliance, Section 79 and Rule 3(1)(d) relate only to an intermediary’s due diligence to retain the safe harbour protection.
He told the court that while the Sahyog portal relies upon Rule 3(1)(d) to issue take down orders to intermediaries, the Rule does not create a new system for blocking content. It simply informs the intermediaries about objectionable content and lays out when safe harbour can be lost, he argued.
“The attempts by the Petitioner (X Corp) to conflate the separate and distinct frameworks of Section 79 together with rule 3(1)(d) and Section 69A are not only incorrect but also misleading,” Mehta said. “By purposefully blurring these clear distinctions, the Petitioner seeks to escape accountability for its statutory duties. Such attempts must be firmly rejected to uphold the integrity of the legal framework and safeguard the broader public interest,” he argued
The government also said that not all content shared online was protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Content that is false, misleading, or harmful, such as hate speech, misinformation, or any other “unlawful material,” does not enjoy constitutional protection, Mehta told the court. The Indian Constitution, he said, permits reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) to safeguard public order, safety, and national interest. Therefore, regulating such content on intermediaries is constitutionally valid and necessary, he said.
Mehta argued that given that X was a mere platform, it had no right to invoke Article 19 of the Constitution. “A notice board has no fundamental rights,” Mehta said, adding that X and all other intermediaries were liable under the IT Act to show “due diligence” and “act quickly” on notices about illegal content.
The government made the submissions while opposing a petition filed by X Corp challenging the union’s directive mandating social media platforms to join the Sahyog Portal, a centralised system for content takedown requests.
The Court will continue hearing the arguments on July 18.
