'Social Media Continuously Monitoring Us, Need To Make Internet Safe & Accountable': Centre To Karnataka High Court In X Corp's Plea

The Central Government told the Karnataka High Court on Thursday (July 17) that in today's world we are continuously being monitored by social media, adding that since the digital landscape today is facing many online threats and harmful content it thus requires coordinated efforts to make the internet a safer and accountable place.

The court was hearing X Corp's plea seeking a declaration that Sec 79(3)(b) IT Act does not confer authority to issue information blocking orders and such orders can only be issued after following the procedure under Section 69A of the Act r/w IT Rules. 

Continuously being monitored by social media

During the hearing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Central Government submitted before Justice N Nagprasanna: 

"...For everyone, a smart television with camera is a computer resource and someone can enter and the camera can capture your...private moments. When we meet some important persons they tell us to keep our phones outside. When I object they would say your phone has become recorder. We are continuously being monitored by social media," he said.

At this stage the court orally said that the only thing remaining is that if your desire is in the mind it will not come on the phone, however if we speak then everything will come on the phone.

"If you say about sugar problem you will get every remedy on your phone. My learned friend's social media is continuously monitoring us," Mehta said. 

He added, "How their business platform works, the moment I post something the algorithm developed by them is that I will be wanting to know the reactions. That is human tendency. Their model is 'more engagement means more revenue'...We believe that we are users, but we are products for social media world over". 

The SG also commented on evolution of Artificial Intelligence, stating that it is a boon for development but it has become hazardous for many reasons and the law will have to develop to meet the technological advancement today.

Twitter mere notice board, can't claim Right to Freedom of Speech & Expression

Twitter had earlier argued that Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19 is one of the factors for purpose of Article 14, a right which is available to the intermediary.

Responding to this, SG Mehta today said that X cannot claim a right under Article 19 of the Constitution of India as it is a "notice board" and only those who post or speak etc., can claim that right.

Mehta said that the Apex Court in Shreya Singhal had said that 'you are using public property thus your content can be controlled in public interest'. He said that apex court had said that citizens have right to know both sides, but something which is patently unlawful has to be regulated.

Chilling effect on those who post

On the question of chilling effect caused due to take down orders, the SG said, "If this provision is to stay and government were to inform them to take down, and intermediary takes it down, then it would chill 'me who has posted it'".

He said, "The entire argument which was accepted earlier by them was that if there was a court order and govt directive it will be accepted. Supreme Court in the case of MouthShut.com v. Union of India had upheld power of government to notify and retained".

"We say that A, B C D is not an offence but we will intimate you that such a thing is unlawful. Rule 3 (1) (d) is one such condition and if you do not follow then your safe harbour goes and then you go and answer the court," he added.

On Rule 3 (1)(d) of IT Rules 2021

Rule 3 (1)(d) of IT Rules 2021 provides that an intermediary upon receiving a court order or on being notified by the government shall not host, store or publish any unlawful information in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, public order, decency or morality, etc. Failure to do so results in withdrawal of safe harbour protection.

Submitting that law has evolved Mehta said that the validity of Rule 3 (1) (d) (2021 IT Rules) may not be considered with a microscope of Twitter adding that Social media intermediary is a larger part.

"You are not responsible for what is posted on your platform, but when we say to take it down, it is not a penal provision. Section 79 is exception of exception; you will have to follow it," the SG submitted.

The court however orally remarked that an exception cannot override the rules.

Mehta then responded that there are similar provisions to Section 79 IT Act followed all over the world and the intermediaries are following it. He added that for newspapers, electronic media there is no concept of safe harbour.

"Owners of video channel etc., are responsible. My Submission is Section 79 (IT Act) is merely an exemption to general rule to what is happening on your (X) platform...Section 79 is not challenged as it is upheld by SC. Twitter has only challenged the rule milord," he said.

Mehta said that Rule 3(1)(d) pertains to only intimating the intermediary and is not about take down. He said that under Section 69 there are penal consequences while under Sec 79 it is only on intimation.

"Even today print or electronic media are liable if they go beyond. Exemption should be used responsibly," the court orally said.

Harmful content must be countered with coordinated efforts

On the issue of regulation in view of technological advancement and increase in cyber crimes, the solicitor general said:

"...190 crore people in India have mobile phones. Cyber crime cases have also rose. The number of complaints reported stood at 26,049 in 2019...and increased to 22,68,346 in 2024. This translates to an overall growth of approximately 401%, indicating a significant surge in reported cases. The digital landscape today faces a wide spectrum of online threats and harmful content that pose serious risks to individuals, communities, and society at large. Addressing these multifaceted challenges requires coordinated efforts between law enforcement, tech platforms, and regulatory bodies to ensure a safer and more accountable internet. This problem is not only related to free speech". 

Need to strike balance between freedom of speech and regulation

Mehta referred to the Ranveer Allahabadia case where the Supreme Court had suggested the Solicitor General to deliberate upon and draft regulatory proposal ensuring reasonable restrictions to regulate vulgar content in YouTube and other online media.

Mehta said that we have to strike a balance between freedom of speech and regulation as the medium has progressed, and the "menace is right before us now".

The court at this stage said, "The algorithms are set by them so you are suggesting that amplification is by intermediary?" Mehta said that not only amplification even sequencing is done by the intermediary. 

The court orally said, "In YouTube also if you keep seeing something then it will come on top"; to this Mehta said, "They curate".

The matter is listed for further hearing on Friday (July 18). 

Case Title: X CORP AND Union of India & Others

Case No: WP 7405/2025