X's "Tom, Dick, and Harry " Jab at Officials Ignites Row Over Takedown Powers

BENGALURU – A contentious hearing in the Karnataka High Court saw a legal challenge by social media giant X Corp against the Indian government's content takedown powers escalate into a heated exchange, sparked by a lawyer’s reference to government officials as "every Tom, Dick, and Harry ." The remark drew swift condemnation from both the bench and the Solicitor General, bringing the fundamental legal question to the forefront: who holds the authority to police content on the internet in India, and under what procedural safeguards?

The courtroom drama unfolded during a hearing where X Corp is challenging the scope of the government's power to issue blocking orders. The platform argues that the current mechanism allows for potential misuse and lacks the stringent procedural safeguards mandated by law.

---

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

At the heart of X Corp's petition is a crucial question of statutory interpretation concerning India's Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000. The platform seeks a judicial declaration that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act does not grant every government official or ministry carte blanche to issue content takedown orders.

Section 79 provides a "safe harbour" for intermediaries, protecting them from liability for third-party content. However, Section 79(3)(b) removes this protection if the intermediary, upon receiving "actual knowledge" from the "appropriate Government or its agency" that information is being used to commit an unlawful act, fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material.

X Corp’s counsel, Senior Advocate K.G. Raghavan , argued that this provision is being interpreted too broadly. He contended that takedown directives, which are coercive in nature, must adhere to the specific, robust procedure laid out in Section 69A of the Act and the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (the "Blocking Rules"). Section 69A empowers the Central Government to issue blocking orders on specific grounds like sovereignty, security of the state, and public order, but it prescribes a detailed process, including the formation of a committee to review such requests.

X Corp's plea is that ministries are bypassing this established procedure, instead using Section 79(3)(b) as a direct and unscrutinised channel to demand content removal. The company has asked the court to prevent government ministries from taking coercive action against it for non-compliance with orders that do not follow the Section 69A pathway.

"Tom, Dick, and Harry ": The Remark That Sparked a Firestorm

The legal arguments took a sharp turn when Mr. Raghavan illustrated his point with a recent example. He informed the court that X had received a takedown notice from the Ministry of Railways for a video showing a woman driving a car on railway tracks in Hyderabad. Questioning both the source and the substance of the notice, he argued against the perceived overreach.

"What if every Tom, Dick and Harry officer sends me notices? See how this is being misused," Mr. Raghavan submitted to the bench, presided over by Justice M Nagaprasanna .

He further questioned the classification of the video as "unlawful content," suggesting it was merely newsworthy. "Some woman drove a car on railway tracks... Milords knows dog biting man is not news, but man biting dog is news," he remarked, implying the content was of public interest rather than illegal.

The phrasing immediately drew a powerful rebuke. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta , appearing for the Union of India, rose to object. "They are officers, not Tom, Dick and Harry . They are statutory functionaries with legal authority," he asserted. "International entities should not display such arrogance."

Mr. Mehta emphasized that digital intermediaries operating in India must be subject to domestic regulation, just as they are in other countries. "No social media platform should expect to operate without regulation," he stated, framing the issue as one of sovereign authority and legal compliance.

Justice Nagaprasanna echoed the Solicitor General’s sentiment, expressing his own disapproval of the language used. "I take objection to this," the judge stated firmly. "They are officers of the Union of India."

The Broader Implications for Free Speech and Platform Governance

While the "Tom, Dick, and Harry " comment captured headlines, the underlying legal battle has significant implications for how digital platforms are governed in India. A ruling in favour of X Corp could streamline and centralise the process for issuing blocking orders, making it more transparent and accountable by funnelling all such requests through the committee-based mechanism of Section 69A. This would potentially curb the power of individual ministries to directly police online content.

Conversely, a ruling upholding the government's interpretation would solidify the power of various agencies to issue takedown notices under Section 79(3)(b), raising concerns among free speech advocates and digital rights organisations about potential censorship without due process.

The matter was further complicated by an intervention application filed by an association of digital media houses, represented by Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi . Mr. Sondhi argued that content creators are the primary victims of arbitrary takedown orders, as their published material is directly affected. When the bench questioned the association's standing in a dispute between X and the government, he replied that their interests are directly impacted.

Solicitor General Mehta objected to the intervention, stating, "X Corp is a capable international company and does not need third-party support... I object to any third-party application filed in support of Twitter."

Next Steps in the High-Stakes Legal Battle

The Karnataka High Court has scheduled the matter for a final hearing on July 8. The bench has permitted X Corp to amend its petition to implead various Union ministries as parties to the case, ensuring all relevant government bodies are represented. The Union of India has been directed to file its response to this impleading application before the next hearing.

The outcome of this case will be closely watched by technology companies, content creators, and legal experts. It promises to deliver a crucial judicial interpretation of the IT Act's takedown provisions, setting a significant precedent for the balance between state regulation, platform liability, and freedom of expression in India's rapidly expanding digital ecosystem.