New Delhi: The Union government on Friday told the Karnataka High Court that the “reasonable restrictions” on freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2) of the Constitution are an “elastic” concept that must evolve in step with advancing technology. The Centre made the submission in response to a petition filed by social media platform X, which has challenged the legality of takedown notices issued under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Section 79(3)(b) stipulates that intermediaries such as social media platforms may lose their “safe harbour” status if they fail to remove or block access to content used to commit an “unlawful act” despite receiving instructions from the government. Losing this protection would make platforms directly liable for the content in question.
X has argued that the government is misusing this provision to bypass the safeguards built into Section 69A of the IT Act, which governs the blocking of online content. Section 69A allows blocking only under specific grounds such as national security, public order, or sovereignty, and includes a review mechanism. In contrast, Section 79(3)(b) does not define “unlawful act” and lacks procedural safeguards.
The platform also contended that such takedown orders produce a “chilling effect” on user expression. However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, rejected the argument, stating that the platform cannot invoke users’ rights to claim that its own freedom of speech is being curtailed.
“Twitter says they are merely a platform for others to express their views. If they are just a notice board, how is their freedom of speech being violated?” Mehta asked, according to Live Law.
He added that the claim of a “chilling effect” cannot justify content that is not in the interest of society. In court, Mehta demonstrated the potential misuse of the platform by pointing to a fake account named “Supreme Court of Karnataka,” arguing that such anonymity allows individuals to post misleading content in the name of public institutions.
Highlighting the growing dangers of fake accounts and deepfake videos, Mehta stressed that such content infringes on individuals’ rights to privacy and protection from abuse. He said that “safe harbour” protection cannot be absolute in an era of such digital threats.
According to Mehta, takedown notices under Section 79(3)(b) function as an “exception to the exception” — a narrowly defined condition under which the general protection granted to intermediaries does not apply.