'They Are Union's Officers; Not Tom, Dick & Harry' : Karnataka High Court Objects To X Corp's Language
X Corp India, the Indian subsidiary of Elon Musk-owned social media platform X (formerly Twitter), on Tuesday told the Karnataka High Court about a notice sent to it by the Ministry of Railways for it to disable access to a video/picture of a woman driving his car on railway tracks in Hyderabad.
Senior Advocate K G Raghavan, appearing for the company, referring to the notice received on June 26, said “What if every Tom, Dick and Harry officer sends notice to me. See how this is being misused.”
He added “Some women drove a car on the railway track. Milords knows dog biting man is not news but man biting dog is news. Photos/videos were put up on social media, can that be unlawful content in this country today?"
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union of India, objected to the language used and said “I take objection to this, they are officers and not tom, dick and harry. They are statutory functionaries, empowered to take action. International bodies should not have this arrogance.”
He added “No social media intermediary can expect completely unregulated functioning. They are bound by regulations in all other countries but in India they want this luxury.”
Justice M Nagaprasanna, while suggesting to the petitioner that for the memo to be considered it has to be served on the other side and they be allowed to file reply said, “These are officers of the Union of India. I take objection to this. They are officers and not tom, dick and harry.”
X Corp's has approached the court seeking a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) IT Act does not confer the authority to issue information blocking orders and such orders can only be issued after following the procedure under Section 69A of the Act read with the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules.
The platform has further sought a direction to various ministries of the Union of India from taking coercive or prejudicial action against X in relation to any 'Information Blocking Orders' issued other than those issued in accordance with section 69A of the IT Act, read with the blocking rules.
Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, appeared for an association of digital media houses, who has filed an intervention application. He argued, “We are content creators who are ultimately affected by any take-down orders.”
The bench asked,“How are you aggrieved? The issue is between Twitter and the Government.” Sondhi replied by saying they are affected because it is their content, and that direct orders are being given to the intermediary to take down the content.
Mehta said, “Let application be heard along with the main matter. But he need not support Twitter, it is an international body and competent and it does not require such external support.” He added, “I object to any third-party application filed supporting twitter.”
The court, posting the matter for final hearing on July 8, permitted the petitioner to amend the petition and implead different ministries of the Union of India. Further it directed the Union of India to file its objections to the impleading application.
Case Title: X Corp vs Union of India
Case No: WP 7405/2025