India and X in legal tussle over content takedown rules, ‘Tom, Dick and Harry’ remark sparks tension in court
X’s lawyer questions the legitimacy of takedown demands by officials; Indian government defends its oversight framework as structured and lawful.
ADVERTISEMENT
The courtroom of the Karnataka High Court turned into a flashpoint on July 1 as lawyers representing Elon Musk’s social media platform X (formerly Twitter) said that every "Tom, Dick, and Harry" government official had been authorized to issue content takedown orders, which drew a sharp rebuke from New Delhi's counsel in the latest clash over content moderation.
According to Reuters, X’s lawyer, KG Raghavan, informed the HC that the platform recently received a notice from the railways department to remove a video, which featured a car being driven on a railway track. Raghavan argued that the video was “news” but the government found it “unlawful”.
“This is the danger, My Lord, that is done now, if every Tom, Dick, and Harry officer is authorised,” Raghavan reportedly said.
The comment prompted a strong response from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is representing the Indian government in the case. Mehta reportedly noted that “officers are not Tom, Dick, or Harry … they are statutory functionaries”.
“No social media intermediary can expect completely unregulated functioning,” Mehta reportedly said.
The legal confrontation comes as part of an ongoing case filed by X challenging the Indian government’s takedown orders under the Information Technology Rules, 2021. In 2021, X had refused to comply with several blocking orders, citing freedom of speech and public interest. While it eventually followed the government’s directives to avoid penalties, the platform simultaneously filed a legal petition contesting the constitutional validity of those orders.
As per media reports, X also filed a plea before the Karnataka HC to amend its petition filed four months ago. The social media platform made an additional demand to scrap Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology Rules, which empowers the government agencies to order intermediaries to remove content pieces from their platforms.
Notably, the original petition sought to declare that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000 did not authorize the government to issue information blocking orders to social media platforms.
Mehta noted that he had no objections in allowing the petition to be amended. After hearing both sides, Justice Nagaprasanna reportedly allowed X to file its amended petition in two days.
The HC also set July 8 as the date for the final hearing.
