Centre pushes for urgent digital regulation, citing social media surveillance & cybercrime surge

The Union Government has asserted the critical need for digital space regulation, citing constant social media surveillance, a surge in cybercrime, and an evolving threat landscape. The Centre made its arguments before the Karnataka High Court during a hearing on a case involving X Corp (formerly Twitter) regarding content takedown directives.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union Government, contended that internet intermediaries like X Corp bear a responsibility to act ethically and cannot claim the same constitutional rights as individuals.

The ongoing hearing, presided over by Justice N Nagaprasanna, addresses X Corp's challenge to the applicability of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act. X Corp has previously argued that this section, frequently used for takedown directives, should not serve as an independent source of executive power to block content. The platform maintains that blocking orders require due process under Section 69A read with the IT Rules, rather than direct instructions under Section 79.

Pervasive Surveillance and AI's Dual Nature Highlighted

Highlighting the extent of digital surveillance, Mehta informed the court, "Today, even a smart TV with a camera is a potential surveillance tool. Many public figures ask visitors to leave their phones outside because these devices have effectively become recorders. We are being continuously monitored by social media."

The Solicitor General also touched upon the growing influence of Artificial Intelligence (AI), acknowledging its developmental benefits while also labeling it a potential hazard. He stressed the necessity for legal frameworks to adapt and address the threats posed by technological advancements.

Platform Rights vs. Individual Freedoms

Dismissing X Corp's assertion of rights under Article 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression), Mehta clarified that such protections are reserved for individuals, not for platforms. "X is simply a notice board. Only those who post content can claim Article 19 protections," he stated, referencing the Supreme Court's ruling in Shreya Singhal v Union of India, which confirmed that content on public platforms can be regulated in the public interest.

Addressing the issue of intermediary liability, Mehta referred to Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules 2021. This rule mandates intermediaries to remove unlawful content upon notification from the government or a court. Failure to comply results in the loss of "safe harbour," a legal immunity provided under Section 79 of the IT Act.

He clarified that Section 79 is not a penal provision but a protective exception that intermediaries forfeit if they disregard legal notices. "Section 79 is an exception to the rule. You can't claim exemption without accountability," Mehta argued.

Escalating Cybercrime Fuels Call for Regulation

Backing the government's push for regulation, Mehta revealed a significant rise in cybercrime complaints across the country, escalating from approximately 26,000 in 2019 to over 22.6 lakh in 2024—a staggering 401% increase.

"This massive surge shows the internet is facing threats that endanger individuals, communities, and the nation. A coordinated response involving law enforcement, platforms, and regulators is essential," he stated.

Referring to a recent Supreme Court observation in the Ranveer Allahabadia case, Mehta emphasized the need to regulate vulgar and harmful content while safeguarding free speech. He also pointed out how platforms amplify content through algorithmic sequencing, which he termed "curated amplification," raising questions about the neutrality of intermediaries. The bench acknowledged that digital platforms are designed to boost user engagement through algorithmic preference.

The case is scheduled for its next hearing on July 18.

Read More:Instagram's Adam Mosseri on India setting global benchmarks in social media habits