Centre Creates Fake ‘Supreme Court’ X Account to Argue for Broader Content Regulation

In a dramatic courtroom demonstration, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta revealed a verified X account impersonating the "Supreme Court of Karnataka," arguing for a more nuanced regulatory framework beyond the strict confines of Section 69A of the IT Act.

Bengaluru – In a move designed to underscore the perils of digital misinformation, the Government of India presented a striking piece of evidence before the Karnataka High Court: a fake, yet verified, X (formerly Twitter) account created in the name of the "Supreme Court of Karnataka." The revelation, made by Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta , occurred during a high-stakes hearing in the ongoing legal battle between the Centre and social media giant X Corp over the scope of government takedown powers.

The SG used the live demonstration to argue that the current legal framework is insufficient to tackle the spectrum of online harms, particularly those falling into a regulatory "grey area." The hearing, presided over by Justice MNagaprasanna , is part of X Corp's challenge against government directives issued under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The Core of the Dispute: Section 79 vs. Section 69A

At the heart of this legal confrontation is a fundamental disagreement over statutory interpretation. X Corp, represented by Senior Advocate KG Raghavan , contends that the government's power to issue content blocking orders is exclusively governed by the procedure laid out in Section 69A of the IT Act, read with the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. This section provides a specific, albeit controversial, mechanism for blocking content on grounds such as national security, public order, and sovereignty.

The Centre, however, argues for a broader interpretation. SG Mehta 's submissions suggest that Section 79, which provides "safe harbour" protection to intermediaries, is not an absolute shield. He argued that when an intermediary fails to comply with its due diligence obligations under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 79, it loses this immunity and must defend its actions in court. The government's use of Section 79(3)(b) to issue takedown orders is predicated on this view—that intermediaries can be directed to act when notified of unlawful content.

A Dramatic Demonstration in Court

To illustrate the government's concerns about platform misuse, SG Mehta made a stunning reveal. "We created this account. It is verified," he informed the court, presenting the fake "Supreme Court of Karnataka" profile. "I can now post anything, and lakhs would believe that the Supreme Court of Karnataka has said it."

Mehta stressed that the account was created in minutes and was never used to post content, serving solely as a tool to demonstrate how easily institutional authority can be impersonated on a verified platform. This, he argued, highlights the profound risk of unchecked anonymity and the speed at which misinformation can be seeded.

The tactic drew a sharp objection from X Corp's counsel. Senior Advocate Raghavan argued that such evidence could not be introduced "across the bar" without being formally placed on record for scrutiny. "You cannot pass this off to the Court without scrutiny or context," he stated.

Justice Nagaprasanna , while acknowledging the procedural concern, permitted the demonstration for its illustrative value. "Their point is that creation of such fake accounts is far too easy," he observed, clarifying that it would not prejudice the merits of X Corp's case. Later in the hearing, Raghavan informed the court that X had since taken down the fake account.

The "Regulatory Grey Area" and the Rise of AI

Expanding on the government's position, SG Mehta argued that many forms of online harm do not neatly fit the specific categories listed under Section 69A, yet remain profoundly unlawful and dangerous. He presented a hypothetical, yet technologically feasible, scenario to the court.

"We have created an AI-generated video where Your Lordship appears to speak against the nation," Mehta submitted. "It’s unlawful, but it doesn’t fit any category under Section 69A."

Justice Nagaprasanna immediately labeled the hypothetical as "an unlawful AI-generated act." This exchange crystallized the Centre's core argument: the law must accommodate proportionate responses to a wide range of unlawful activities. The SG advocated for a tiered system of intervention, suggesting that not all infractions warrant the "harshest step of blocking or imprisonment."

"Don't block or jail them immediately. Just caution them," Mehta proposed, a suggestion with which the judge appeared to concur, while reiterating, "Still, it remains unlawful." This line of reasoning posits that intermediaries should be compelled to issue warnings or take lesser actions against content that, while not meeting the high threshold of Section 69A, is clearly illegal.

Broader Context: Anonymity and Historical Precedent

The court proceedings also drew parallels to other instances of digital and traditional media misuse. Justice Nagaprasanna referenced the "Proton Mail case," where anonymous emails containing morphed and pornographic images were used for targeted harassment, noting, "The problem of anonymity remains."

In a counterpoint, X's counsel, KG Raghavan , reminded the court that lapses in verification and reporting are not unique to the digital age. He cited a 2002 incident where the High Court had initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the press for false reporting, suggesting that offline platforms have faced similar challenges.

The SG's arguments also harked back to the landmark Shreya Singhal v. Union of India case, where the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act but upheld Section 69A. Mehta reiterated the concern first raised in that case: that on the internet, every user is a "publisher, printer, and broadcaster," making regulatory oversight uniquely complex but essential.

Implications for Intermediary Liability

The outcome of this case could have significant ramifications for how social media platforms and other intermediaries operate in India. If the court sides with the Centre, it could validate the government's authority to issue takedown orders under Section 79(3)(b), creating a parallel track for content moderation outside the Section 69A framework. This would place a greater onus on intermediaries to respond to government notifications about a wider range of "unlawful" content, potentially eroding their safe harbour protections if they fail to act.

Conversely, a ruling in favour of X Corp would reinforce Section 69A as the sole, exclusive mechanism for state-mandated content blocking, providing platforms with greater procedural certainty. However, it would leave the "regulatory grey area" identified by the SG largely unaddressed, potentially prompting legislative action to amend the IT Act to account for new technological threats like AI-driven deepfakes and sophisticated impersonation schemes.

The matter is scheduled for its next hearing on July 25, when these critical questions of digital governance and intermediary responsibility will be further debated.