Lawyer of X told a court on Tuesday that nearly any govt official – “every ‘Tom, Dick, and Harry” – has been given authority to issue content takedown orders.
India’s India’s Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pushed back strongly against a lawyer representing Elon Musk’s social media platform X after he told a court on Tuesday that nearly any government official – “every ‘Tom, Dick, and Harry'” – has been given the authority to issue content takedown orders.
The controversial remark was made by X’s lawyer KG Raghavan, during a hearing in the Karnataka high court.
The hearing was over X’s legal challenge to what it describes as a government “censorship portal” – a platform that allows officials to issue content removal directives.
What did the X lawyer say
An Indian Railways notice demanded the removal of a video showing a car being driven on railway tracks – content that Raghavan described as “news,” though deemed unlawful by authorities.
The government of India, however, argued that the website is simply a tool to inform companies of their legal obligations under due diligence norms.
“This is the danger, My Lord, that is done now, if every Tom, Dick, and Harry officer is authorised,” Raghavan told the court, citing a recent takedown request from the Indian Railways.
“Some women drove a car on the railway track. Milords knows dog biting man is not news but man biting dog is news. Photos/videos were put up on social media, can that be unlawful content in this country today?” LiveLaw quoted Raghavan
Tushar Mehta hits back
The phrase triggered immediate condemnation from Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who slammed the characterisation of government officials.
“Officers are not Tom, Dick, or Harry … they are statutory functionaries,” Mehta said.
“No social media intermediary can expect completely unregulated functioning,” he added.
X, formerly known as Twitter, was involved in a high-profile standoff with the government over its refusal to comply with orders to block specific tweets. Though the platform eventually complied, it continues to fight the mat.
The court, posting the matter for final hearing on July 8, allowed the petitioner to amend the petition and implead different ministries of the Union of India, according to LiveLaw.
The article originally appeared on Hindustan Times
