Karnataka HC objects to X corp lawyer referring to officials as ‘Tom, Dick and Harry’
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday raised objections to language used by a lawyer representing X Corp (formerly Twitter), during a hearing concerning content takedown notices issued under the Information Technology (IT) Act.
Senior Advocate KG Raghavan, appearing for X, questioned the legal basis for a recent notice issued by the Ministry of Railways, which asked the platform to remove a video showing a woman driving on railway tracks in Hyderabad. Raghavan raised concerns about broad application of powers under the IT Act, stating, “What if every Tom, Dick and Harry officer sends me notices? See how this is being misused.” He also questioned whether the content in question qualified as unlawful, adding, “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, appearing for the Union government, objected to the phrasing. “They are officers, not Tom, Dick and Harry. They are statutory functionaries with legal authority. International entities should not display such arrogance,” he said. Mehta argued that social media platforms must operate within the legal frameworks of the countries in which they function, noting that similar compliance is maintained elsewhere.
Justice M Nagaprasanna, presiding over the hearing, also took exception to the language. “I take objection to this. They are officers of the Union of India,” the judge stated.
The hearing relates to a petition filed by X Corp seeking judicial clarity on whether Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act permits all government officials to issue content blocking orders. The platform contends that only the process defined under Section 69A of the Act and its associated rules should apply.
X has also requested that the court prevent ministries from initiating coercive or adverse action based on takedown notices not issued under the prescribed process.
Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, representing a group of digital media publishers who filed an intervention application, argued that content creators are directly affected by takedown orders issued to platforms like X. When questioned by the bench on how the group is aggrieved in the dispute between X and the government, Sondhi said that their published content is impacted by such orders.
Solicitor General Mehta opposed the intervention, stating, “I object to any third-party application filed in support of Twitter,” and added that the platform is capable of defending itself.
The matter has been posted for final hearing on July 8. The court has allowed X to amend its petition to include other Union ministries, and directed the government to file its response to the impleading application before the next hearing.
News