The reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution are an “elastic” concept that must evolve with changing technology, the Centre told the Karnataka High Court on Friday, reported Live Law.

The statement came in response to a petition filed by social media platform X, which has challenged the legality of takedown notices issued under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

This provision states that online intermediaries, such as social media platforms, can lose their safe harbour status if they fail to remove or disable access to content that is used to commit an “unlawful act” despite being told to do so by government authorities. Removing this status would mean that the platforms would be liable for the content in question.

The company has argued that the Centre is misusing this section to bypass the requirements of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act to censor online content.

Section 69A states that online content can be blocked on grounds such as national sovereignty, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign countries or public order. In contrast, Section 79(3)(b) does not define an “unlawful act” and does not contain any review mechanism.

X has also argued that the takedown orders create a “chilling effect” on its users, Live Law reported.

On Friday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the court that the argument cannot be used as a defence to justify spreading content that is “not in the interest of society”.

Mehta added that X cannot claim the orders had created a “chilling effect” on behalf of its users.

“Twitter [former name of X] says they offer a platform where others post and express their opinion,” Live Law quoted the solicitor general as saying. “If they are only a notice board then how is their right to freedom of speech violated.”

Fake ‘Supreme Court of Karnataka’ account

Opposing X’s petition, Mehta also showed the bench an account with the name “Supreme Court of Karnataka”, Live Law reported.

“Now I can post anything in that and lakhs and lakhs of people who view that and will say that Supreme Court of Karnataka has said this…and I can remain anonymous,” said Mehta.

Mehta said that fake accounts and deepfake videos infringe on the right to privacy and the right not to be abused. To curb such threats, the “safe harbour” protection for intermediaries cannot be absolute, the legal news outlet quoted Mehta as saying.

Takedown notices issued under Section 79(3)(b) are an “exception to the exception” of safe harbour, he reportedly said.