**Karnataka High Court Critiques Lawyer’s Remarks on Government Officials**
The Karnataka High Court expressed disapproval on Tuesday regarding comments made by a lawyer representing Elon Musk’s X, who referred to government officials as “Tom, Dick and Harry” while discussing the misuse of power related to content takedown notices, according to PTI.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate KG Raghavan, representing X, informed the court that the social media platform had recently received a notice from the Ministry of Railways requesting the removal of a video depicting a woman driving a car on a railway track in Hyderabad. He raised concerns about whether all government officials possess the authority to issue content takedown notices under the Information Technology (IT) Act.
Raghavan questioned, “What if every Tom, Dick and Harry officer sends me notices? See how this is being misused,” and further commented on the nature of the content, stating, “Some woman drove a car on railway tracks. Milords knows dog biting man is not news, but man biting dog is news.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, strongly objected to Raghavan’s language, asserting, “They are officers, not Tom, Dick and Harry. They are statutory functionaries with legal authority. International entities should not display such arrogance.” Mehta emphasized that social media platforms must adhere to regulations, noting that intermediaries comply with laws in other countries and should do the same in India.
Justice M Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court also criticized the remarks, underscoring the importance of central government officials by stating, “I take objection to this. They are officers of the Union of India.”
The court was hearing X Corp’s case, which seeks a judicial declaration that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act does not grant all government officials the power to issue blocking orders. The company argues that such orders should follow the procedures outlined in Section 69A of the Act and the relevant blocking rules. Additionally, X has requested the court to prevent government ministries from taking coercive actions against it based on blocking orders that do not comply with the prescribed procedures.
Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, representing a group of digital media houses that filed an intervention application, stated that content creators are directly impacted when platforms are ordered to remove content. When questioned by the HC bench about the association’s grievance in a matter between the government and X, Sondhi explained that takedown orders affect their published material. However, SG Mehta objected to the intervention, asserting that X is a capable international company that does not require third-party support.
In conclusion, the ongoing case highlights the complexities surrounding content regulation and the authority of government officials in issuing takedown notices, raising important questions about the balance between regulation and freedom of expression in the digital space.
**FAQ**
**Q: What was the main issue discussed in the Karnataka High Court regarding X?**
A: The court addressed the authority of government officials to issue content takedown notices under the IT Act, following comments made by a lawyer representing X that were deemed disrespectful.
