The Karnataka High Court heard arguments from the Centre on the necessity for urgent regulation of digital platforms, particularly in light of rising cybercrime and digital surveillance. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta emphasized that platforms like X Corp should act responsibly and cannot claim the same rights as individuals.
Constant surveillance by social media, rising cybercrime, and the evolving threat landscape has made it necessary for urgent regulation in the digital space, the Centre told the Karnataka High Court during a hearing on the X Corp (formerly Twitter) case over content takedown directives.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union Government, argued that internet intermediaries like ‘X’ must act responsibly and cannot claim the same constitutional rights as individuals.
X Corp had approached the court challenging the applicability of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, often used to justify takedown directives. It said that blocking orders can only be issued through due process under Section 69A read with the IT Rules and not via direct instructions under Section 79.
“Today, even a smart TV with a camera is a potential surveillance tool. Many public figures ask visitors to leave their phones outside because these devices have effectively become recorders. We are being continuously monitored by social media,” he said, highlighting the extent of digital surveillance in people’s lives.
The Solicitor General also touched upon the growing influence of Artificial Intelligence, calling it a developmental boon but also a potential hazard.
He noted that legal frameworks must evolve to address the threats posed by technological advances.
Dismissing X Corp’s claim under Article 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression), Mehta asserted that such protections are reserved for individuals, not platforms.
“X is simply a notice board. Only those who post content can claim Article 19 protections,” he said, adding that the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v Union of India had clarified that content on public platforms can be regulated in public interest.
Addressing the issue of intermediary liability, Mehta referred to Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules 2021, which requires intermediaries to remove unlawful content upon government or court notification. Failure to comply results in the loss of “safe harbour”, a legal immunity provided under Section 79 of the IT Act.
He clarified that Section 79 is not a penal provision, but a protective exception that intermediaries lose if they ignore legal notices. “Section 79 is an exception to the rule. You can’t claim exemption without accountability,” Mehta argued.
Backing the government’s push for regulation, Mehta said cybercrime complaints in the country rose from around 26,000 in 2019 to over 22.6 lakh in 2024–a staggering 401 per cent increase.
“This massive surge shows the internet is facing threats that endanger individuals, communities, and the nation. A coordinated response involving law enforcement, platforms, and regulators is essential,” he said.
Referring to a recent Supreme Court observation in the Ranveer Allahbadia case, Mehta stressed the need to regulate vulgar and harmful content while protecting free speech.
“The platform itself amplifies content through algorithmic sequencing. If you watch something repeatedly on YouTube, it appears on top–this is curated amplification,” he said.
