SG Shows To Judge Fake X Account 'Supreme Court Of Karnataka' To Show Misuse

In an interesting turn of events today, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta showed to the Karnataka High Court a fake account in the name of 'Supreme Court of Karnataka' which was verified by platform X, to illustrate the rampant misuse of social media and the need to curtail it.

"We have opened one account in the name of 'Supreme Court of Karnataka' and Twitter (X) has opened that account and it is a verified account by Twitter (X). Now I can post anything in that and lakhs and lakhs of people who view that and will say that Supreme Court of Karnataka has said this...and I can remain anonymous," the SG submitted.

The development ensued as Centre was opposing the petition filed by X Corp against take down directives issued by government officers under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act.

The SG recollected the submissions made by the Central government in the Shreya Singhal case (which it claims to be per incuriam) that on internet, each individual is publisher, printer, producer, director and broadcaster of the content without any statutory regulation and thus, it is very easy to "invade upon the privacy" of any individual on internet.

It is to illustrate this point, that the SG proceeded to show the fake account to Justice M Nagaprassana who is hearing the matter.

However, Senior Advocate KG Raghavan appearing for X took strong exception to this. "I can say has it (the account) gone through my scrutiny process? Do we know the extent of scrutiny I can do? This can't be done across the bar, passing on to your Lordship, without even being put on record."

The SG however clarified that the page has not been used and is only to demonstrate the element of misuse. "We have not used it because otherwise it comes in public domain. We have not used it. We have not sent any messages. This is just to show that there exists an account and within 5 minutes..."

The Court then told Raghavan that this is only an illustration and it will not prejudice X's case. "Their submission is creation of such things in intermediary is easy," the judge said.

Justice Nagaprasanna further remarked that in the Proton Mail case also, anonymity was a problem.

"You shoot mails after mail which contain pornographic material to all in sundry of a particular organsiation, of those organisation members. And all are morphed pictures and so derogatory, so horrendous...but anonymity is claimed," the Judge observed orally.

Raghavan then responded that there is nothing new in this and that there have also been incidents in the past, involving the Press (which is offline). He then recollected a 2002 incident, where the High Court had taken suo motu cognizance and issued contempt.

Later, he informed the Court that the fake account 'Supreme Court of Karnataka' has been blocked by X.

X has sought a declaration that Section 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.

SG Mehta however argued that there are several instances in the real life of internet usage which may not fall strictly either under Section 69A or they are of such nature that harshest step of blocking or imprisonment under Section 69A may perhaps be disproportionate.

"For example, as I have informed your Lordship and I don't think I should show that but we have created an AI generated video that your Lorship, sitting on this bench, in your Lordship's voice, are saying something against the nation. It will not fall in any of the categories under Section 69A. Nonetheless, it is unlawful. It is not even impersonation," the SG submitted.

"AI generated act which is unlawful straight away," the Judge remarked.

The SG continued, "So legislative scheme is there is a concept of least intrusive measure by legislature. There may be harsh measures and there may be least intrusive. Don't ask them. Don't block them. Don't criminally proceed with them..."

"Caution them," the Judge said.

"Yes, caution them that you can continue, take your business call..." SG said.

"But this is unlawful," the Judge interjected.

"Yes, unlawful, but according to us" the SG continued.

"You can say this is lawful but then safe harbour will not be available. When the court of this country is approached by a citizen of this country, you will not be able to say that I can't be touched because of Section 79. Because you are in breach of Section 79(2) and (3). Then you will have to defend. You may succeed also," the SG added.

The hearing will continue on July 25. More details from hearing here.