'Supreme Court of Karnataka': Solicitor general flags verified fake account on X

The next hearing is scheduled for July 25

In a bid to illustrate the misuse of social media platforms, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta on July 18 showed the judge at Karnataka High Court a fake profile on X (formerly Twitter) with the handle 'Supreme Court of Karnataka, and which also carried the blue tick of verification.

"We have opened one account in the name of the Supreme Court of Karnataka and Twitter (X) has opened that account. It is a verified account by Twitter (X). Now I can post anything in that and lakhs of people who view that say the Supreme Court of Karnataka has said this...and I can remain anonymous," Mehta said while illustrating the profile to Justice M Nagaprasanna.

Mehta was arguing for the government in the X vs Union of Government case where the former sued the government for the establishment of the Sahyog Portal, a centralised platform for processing of content takedown orders, and the alleged misuse of specific provisions of the IT Act and IT Rules.

However, senior advocate KG Raghavan, who was appearing for X Corp, opposed this illustration, while reminding the court that he was not furnished information about this account earlier, thereby ruling out his opportunity to scrutinise it effectively. Raghavan urged the court not to consider it while forming its judgment. The judge assured that it would not be taken into consideration.

Also read: Meta to soon join Centre's Sahyog Portal for takedown orders, integration in final stages

At the end of the proceedings on July 18, though, Raghavan told the court that X Corp had taken action against the account. In response, in a lighter vein, Mehta quipped that X Corp had taken the illustration as an oral notice under the IT Rules.

Meanwhile, Mehta also argued that the establishment of the Sahyog Portal of does not need to be backed by a law. He argued that it was the government's administrative authority to set up the central content takedown system now at the heart of X’s legal challenge.

Mehta also questioned X’s legal standing to bring the constitutional challenge in the first place, arguing that as a foreign corporation, it cannot invoke rights under Article 14 or 19 of the Constitution.