Introduction
A recent hearing in the Karnataka High Court saw a heated argument between X (formerly Twitter) and the Indian government. The problem started when X’s lawyer, while arguing against the government’s power to order content removal, said that government officials were like “every Tom, Dick, and Harry.” This comment upset the Solicitor General of India and the judge, showing the ongoing tension and the big legal fight over controlling online content and freedom of speech in India.
Background
X has been in a long legal fight with the Indian government about requests to remove content. The main reason for this conflict is how India’s Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, especially Section 69A and Section 79(3)(b), should be understood and used.
The Case: The current legal dispute is officially called as – X Corp v. Union of India and it was started by X (then Twitter) to argue against many orders from the Indian government to block content. X believes these orders don’t follow the rules in the IT Act and violate basic rights. The company wants these orders to be cancelled and wants clearer rules for removing content, asking for more openness and court supervision in the process.
- Section 69A: This part of the law allows the Central Government to order that certain information be blocked from public view if it threatens national security, public order, or India’s independence. It explains a clear process for making such orders, including a way to review them.
- Section 79(3)(b): This part talks about the “safe harbor” protection for online companies. It says that a company loses its protection from being held responsible if it knows from the “appropriate Government or its agency” that certain information is being used for illegal activities and it doesn’t quickly remove or block access to that material.
X’s main argument is that the government is wrongly using Section 79(3)(b) to create a “different way” to block content. This, X says, avoids the stricter rules and protections mentioned in Section 69A and a major Supreme Court ruling in 2015 (the Shreya Singhal case). X claims this allows different government departments and even local police to send notices to take down content without proper checks or following the correct legal steps. X calls this “unlimited censorship.” The platform has also complained about a government website called ‘Sahyog,’ which it describes as a “censorship portal” designed to make it easier to issue such orders.
Key Points
- X’s lawyer used this phrase to criticize government officials issuing content takedown orders leading to strong objections from the government and the judge.
- The main legal fight is whether government orders to remove content must always follow the strict rules of Section 69A or if Section 79(3)(b) allows for different and less formal ways to demand content removal.
- The government has warned X that if it doesn’t follow content takedown orders, it could lose its “safe harbor” protection, which protects online companies from being held responsible for user content.
Recent Developments
The Karnataka High Court has allowed X to change its legal petition to include various Union ministries as parties, ensuring all relevant government bodies are involved in the case. The Union of India has been directed to submit its response to this request to include more parties before the next hearing. The court has set the case for a final hearing on July 8, 2025.
Conclusion
The “Tom, Dick, and Harry” comment has certainly added a dramatic twist to an already important legal battle. Beyond the court drama, this case has huge implications for freedom of speech, how online platforms are run, and how content is controlled in India. The final decision in this dispute will likely set a key example for how digital platforms operate in the country, defining the balance between government rules, the responsibility of online companies and the basic right to freedom of expression in India’s fast-changing digital world. The court’s ultimate interpretation of the IT Act’s rules on content removal will be closely watched by tech companies, civil rights groups, and the public.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY DHRUV SELOT
