Bengaluru: The central govt Thursday made it clear in Karnataka high court that any entity operating in India is bound by Indian laws.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the govt in a in a petition filed by US-based social media company X Corporation, stressed that Indian laws bind any intermediary operating in the country.
In its writ petition, the Elon Musk-owned company had sought a declaration to the effect that Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) does not confer authority to issue information-blocking orders.
Mehta submitted, “The ultimate conclusion of the entire scheme of things is that the petitioner is an intermediary. It is like a noticeboard in a village. I can go and post some good quotation, somebody can post some abuse, and someone, someone can post some defamatory material. The petitioner says that it is not responsible. To protect it, there is a safe harbour clause. Which means suppose somebody posts posts defamatory material, I file a suit against that gentleman as well as X, and they will be protected under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act.”
“As of now, nothing has happened. We can intimate them that this is illegal. In the meanwhile, nothing will happen, and nothing can happen,” he added while he added while emphasising that the court can dispose of the of the matter finally, instead of hearing the interim prayer.
Earlier, senior advocate KG Raghavan, arguing for the petitioner, submitted that X Corp is not supporting any unlawful, unlawful act and it is only focusing on how the power under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act should be exercised.
“The central govt is authorising every officer, it could be the SHO, the tax officer or the village accountant, to issue orders under Section 79(3)(b). There is a notification which says a tax recovery officer is empowered to issue a blocking order under 79(3)(b). Tomorrow it can be a clerk,” Raghavan added.
Raghavan said the exemption granted by the statute to the petitioner under Section 79(1) has been taken away without following the safeguard provided under Section 69A by issuing blocking orders under Section 79(3)(b).
“Under Section 69A, the mechanism is different. The nodal of officer has to write to the designated officer, who then has has to take the opinion of a committee. Thereafter, they have to follow the procedure and come back to the nodal officer.And then there is a provision for review… Section 79(3)(b) gives unbridled power to decide what is unlawful irrespective of what is contained in Section 69A,” Raghavan told the court.
Justice M Nagaprasanna adjourned the hearing to April 24, granting time to the company to file a rejoinder to the to the statement of objections filed by the central govt and recording that the matter would be decided finally.
The judge also noted that there is no necessity to pass any interim order at this stage as the matter has been heard at length.
