X removes account highlighting anonymous content risks

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta said that his office created a fictional account under the name “Supreme Court of Karnataka” and X permitted and verified it

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta on Friday underlined the dangers of anonymous content online and told the Karnataka high court that his office created a fictional “Supreme Court of Karnataka” account on X. He said X verified it with the top court’s photograph and an official-looking handle, underscoring how easily misinformation can be disseminated, even as X suspended the account during the hearing of its plea against the Sahyog portal.

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta told the Karnataka high court about the fictional account to illustrate his point. (Shutterstock)

“This is how easily an account can be created in the name of a constitutional body,” Mehta told Justice M Nagaprasanna, hearing X Corp’s plea against the centralised system for content takedown requests.

X Corp’s counsel, senior advocate KG Raghavan, questioned the propriety of the government creating a fake handle and showing it to the court without officially placing it on record.

Mehta clarified that the account was “purely representational,” meant for “demonstrative” purposes only, and that no posts had been made from it.

Raghavan informed Justice Nagaprasanna that the fictional account had been suspended as the proceedings were concluding for the day, much to the amusement of the court. “We are a responsible organisation,” Raghavan said.

Mehta made the broader argument about the dangers of user anonymity online and raised concerns about the lack of accountability on the platform. “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?”

Mehta criticised X for resisting Indian regulatory frameworks while complying with local laws in other countries. “All other intermediaries have joined the Sahyog portal. Only X Corp has refused. They object to even a non-binding mechanism,” Mehta said.

He defended the legality of the portal, describing it as a “purely administrative” tool to inform intermediaries about flagged content under existing laws. “It neither mandates removal nor imposes penalties,” he said.

Mehta dismissed X Corp’s argument that indiscriminate take-down orders from statutory authorities will have a “chilling effect” on the right to free speech. He reiterated that X claimed to be a mere intermediary or a platform. Mehta said, therefore, it had no claims over the fundamental right to free speech guaranteed to citizens under Article 19 of the Constitution.

“They [X] 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. He referred to Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules and maintained that the provision only issues a caution to intermediaries. “If a post violates the Copyright Act, the platform is merely informed. If someone is aggrieved, their remedy lies in challenging the law, not the act of flagging it,” he said.

X has challenged the government’s directive mandating social media platforms to join the portal. The court will hear the case next on July 25.