NEW DELHI: A legal battle between Elon Musk 's social media platform X and the Centre intensified on Tuesday, after X’s lawyer accused the government of allowing "every Tom, Dick, and Harry" official to issue content takedown orders.
The remark sparked strong pushback from government's legal team, news agency Reuters reported.
The comment came during a hearing in the Karnataka high court , where X is challenging a government-run website it describes as a “censorship portal.”
During the hearing, X’s lawyer KG Raghavan cited a recent case where the Indian Railways demanded removal of a video showing a car on railway tracks, a video X said qualified as news.
“This is the danger, My Lord, that is done now, if every Tom, Dick, and Harry officer is authorised,” Raghavan was quoted as saying by Reuters.
The phrase drew immediate objection from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who said: “Officers are not Tom, Dick, or Harry … they are statutory functionaries. No social media intermediary can expect completely unregulated functioning.”
Earlier in March, the Centre had strongly objected to social media platform’s description of the ‘Sahyog’ portal as a “censorship” tool, calling the allegation “unfortunate” and “condemnable” in a detailed affidavit submitted to the Karnataka high court.
In response to X Corp ’s legal challenge to India’s content-blocking mechanisms, the government had argued that the platform had misread provisions of the Information Technology Act , particularly Sections 69A and 79(3)(b).
X Corp contended that Section 79(3)(b) does not allow the government to issue content takedown orders without following the safeguards laid out under Section 69A and the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Shreya Singhal case. The Centre, however, asserted that Section 69A clearly provides for blocking orders under specific circumstances, with appropriate checks and procedures.
The government clarified that Section 79(3)(b) only defines the responsibilities of intermediaries and that failure to comply with legal directives could lead to losing safe harbour protections under Rule 7 of the 2021 IT Rules. It accused X Corp of conflating takedown “notices” issued under Section 79(3)(b) with formal “blocking orders” under Section 69A—two distinct processes, as previously recognized by the Supreme Court.
The Centre further emphasised that X, as a foreign commercial entity, has no inherent right to publish or defend third-party content under Indian law. Citing a previous Karnataka high court ruling in a case involving Twitter, the government reiterated that Articles 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution do not extend to such entities.
With its filing, the Centre reinforced its stance that India’s legal framework on content moderation is lawful, balanced, and not indicative of government overreach.
The remark sparked strong pushback from government's legal team, news agency Reuters reported.
The comment came during a hearing in the Karnataka high court , where X is challenging a government-run website it describes as a “censorship portal.”
During the hearing, X’s lawyer KG Raghavan cited a recent case where the Indian Railways demanded removal of a video showing a car on railway tracks, a video X said qualified as news.
“This is the danger, My Lord, that is done now, if every Tom, Dick, and Harry officer is authorised,” Raghavan was quoted as saying by Reuters.
The phrase drew immediate objection from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who said: “Officers are not Tom, Dick, or Harry … they are statutory functionaries. No social media intermediary can expect completely unregulated functioning.”
Earlier in March, the Centre had strongly objected to social media platform’s description of the ‘Sahyog’ portal as a “censorship” tool, calling the allegation “unfortunate” and “condemnable” in a detailed affidavit submitted to the Karnataka high court.
In response to X Corp ’s legal challenge to India’s content-blocking mechanisms, the government had argued that the platform had misread provisions of the Information Technology Act , particularly Sections 69A and 79(3)(b).
X Corp contended that Section 79(3)(b) does not allow the government to issue content takedown orders without following the safeguards laid out under Section 69A and the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Shreya Singhal case. The Centre, however, asserted that Section 69A clearly provides for blocking orders under specific circumstances, with appropriate checks and procedures.
The government clarified that Section 79(3)(b) only defines the responsibilities of intermediaries and that failure to comply with legal directives could lead to losing safe harbour protections under Rule 7 of the 2021 IT Rules. It accused X Corp of conflating takedown “notices” issued under Section 79(3)(b) with formal “blocking orders” under Section 69A—two distinct processes, as previously recognized by the Supreme Court.
The Centre further emphasised that X, as a foreign commercial entity, has no inherent right to publish or defend third-party content under Indian law. Citing a previous Karnataka high court ruling in a case involving Twitter, the government reiterated that Articles 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution do not extend to such entities.
With its filing, the Centre reinforced its stance that India’s legal framework on content moderation is lawful, balanced, and not indicative of government overreach.
You may also like
Louis Tomlinson shares first loved-up snap with Zara McDermott after Glastonbury
UK location that gets more UFO sightings than anywhere else on planet
Quad meeting: Pahalgam terror attack was economic warfare, says Jaishankar; rules out yielding to nuclear blackmail
Max Verstappen's 'additional Red Bull exit clause' revealed by ex-star after threat
51-Shakti Peethas Park to be set up in Tripura to boost spiritual heritage: Minister
