‘No Tom, Dick, or Harry’: The government reprimanded Elon Musk’s X; ‘He is a legal worker’. Bharat News

New Delhi: A legal battle between Elon Musk’s social media platform X and the Center intensified on Tuesday, when the X lawyer accused the government of allowing the officer to issue orders to the officer of “Har Tom, Dick, and Harry” to issue the material. Reuters of the news agency said that this comment promoted a strong pushback from the government’s legal team.The comment came during a hearing in the Karnataka High Court, where X is challenging a government -run website that he described as a “censorship portal”. During the hearing, X lawyer KG Raghavan recently cited a case, where Indian Railways showed a car removing a car on railway tracks, a video X called as a news.Reuters said to Raghavan, “This is the danger, my God, who is now done, if every Tom, dick, and Harry are authorized,” Raghavan was said by Reuters.The phrase immediately objected to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who said: “Officers Tom, Dick, or Harry … They are legal executives. No social media mediation can expect a completely irregular functioning.”Earlier in March, the Center strongly objected to the details of the ‘Sahg’ portal of the social media platform as a “censorship” tool, calling the allegation “unfortunate” and “condemnable” in a detailed affidavit handed over to the Karnataka High Court.In response to the legal challenge of X Corp for India’s content-furious mechanisms, the government argued that the forum had denied the provisions of the Information Technology Act, especially sections 69A and 79 (3) (B).The X Corp said that Section 79 (3) (B) does not allow the government to issue material takedown orders without determining the security measures prescribed under Section 69A and the Supreme Court’s decision in the case. However, the Center stated that Section 69A clearly provides to block orders in specific circumstances with specific conditions and proper investigation and procedures.The government clarified that Section 79 (3) (B) only defines the responsibilities of the mediators and failure to follow legal instructions may lose safe port protection under Rule 7 of IT Rules of 2021. It accused the X Corp of “notice” to the “notice” issued under Section 79 (3) (B), which was already with the formal “blocked order” under Section 69A -two separate procedures recognized by the Supreme Court.The Center further emphasized that X, as a foreign commercial unit, has no inherent right to publish or defend third-party materials under Indian law. Citing the verdict of the previous Karnataka High Court in a case related to Twitter, the government reiterated that articles of the Indian Constitution are not 19 and 21 such institutions.With its filing, the Center strengthened its stance that India’s legal framework on material moderation is valid, balanced, and is not a sign of government overrech.