BENGALURU — A heated exchange erupted in the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday during a hearing on Elon Musk-owned platform X’s (formerly Twitter) legal challenge to India’s content takedown regime, after X’s counsel sharply criticized the government’s process for issuing removal directives.
Senior advocate KG Raghavan, appearing for X, described the government’s “censorship portal” as a tool that allows “every Tom, Dick, and Harry officer” to demand content removal — a comment that drew swift and stern objection from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.
What Triggered the Clash?
The remark came during X’s challenge to India’s IT Rules, which mandate that intermediaries like X comply with takedown notices issued via a centralized portal used by government bodies. Raghavan cited a takedown demand from the Indian Railways, which had objected to a viral video showing a car being driven on railway tracks — footage that the platform contended was “newsworthy” and not unlawful.
“This is the danger now, My Lords. If every Tom, Dick, and Harry officer is authorised, where does it stop?” Raghavan argued, according to LiveLaw, questioning the unchecked authority to censor content under the current system.
Tushar Mehta Reacts: “They Are Statutory Functionaries”
The Solicitor General rejected Raghavan’s tone, defending the officials issuing takedown orders.
“Officers are not Tom, Dick, or Harry. They are statutory functionaries,” Mehta told the bench. “No social media intermediary can expect completely unregulated functioning.”
He emphasized that the portal is not a tool of censorship, but a mechanism to enforce due diligence obligations under law. “This is about regulation, not suppression,” Mehta added.
What the Case Is About
X has consistently resisted what it calls “arbitrary and excessive censorship”. The platform has argued that the lack of transparency around who can issue takedown orders and no clear recourse for appeal amounts to a violation of constitutional free speech protections.
This is not the first clash between X and the Indian government. In 2021, the platform delayed compliance with takedown orders related to farmers’ protests and content deemed critical of the government. The platform eventually complied under legal threat, but challenged some orders in court.
Final Hearing Scheduled
The Karnataka High Court scheduled the final hearing for July 8, and allowed X to amend its petition to include relevant ministries as parties to the case. The outcome is being closely watched amid growing global debate over how governments regulate digital content, balance national interest with speech rights, and define the limits of platform responsibility.
Background
Under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, the Indian government can direct intermediaries to block or remove content in the interest of national security, public order, or prevention of incitement. Social media platforms are required to act on these directives or risk losing safe harbor protections that shield them from legal liability for user-generated content.
This high-stakes legal battle could set a precedent for how far the Indian government can go in policing the internet — and how far platforms like X are willing to push back.