Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000

Fake Verified X Account Demonstration in Karnataka HC

Why in news : In an ongoing case in the Karnataka High Court, the Union Government demonstrated how social media accounts can be easily misused by creating a fake verified X (formerly Twitter) account in the name of a non-existent body — the "Supreme Court of Karnataka". The account, verified by the platform, was shown in court by Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta to highlight the potential for misinformation and impersonation.

This demonstration was presented during the hearing of a petition filed by X Corp., which is challenging the blocking orders issued under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. X Corp. also objected to the Centre’s ‘Sahyog’ portal, alleging it facilitates pre-approved censorship and circumvents the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in previous judgments related to free speech and intermediary responsibility.

Important Acts & Provisions:

1. Information Technology Act, 2000

   • Section 79: Provides “safe harbour” to intermediaries (like X), shielding them from liability for third-party content unless they fail to act on government orders to block or remove content.

   • Central issue in the case revolves around whether blocking orders bypass procedural safeguards mandated under this section.

2. Supreme Court Judgment:

   • Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): Held that intermediaries must only remove content upon receiving actual knowledge through a court order or notification by an appropriate government agency, thus placing limits on arbitrary blocking.

Relevant Scheme/Platform:

1. Sahyog Portal:

   • Origin:
     SAHYOG follows an October 2023 Office Memorandum from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) authorizing government agencies to block content under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000.

   • Legal Provision Used – Section 79(3)(b), IT Act:

     • Grants “safe harbour” protection to intermediaries.

     • But if platforms are notified by the government of unlawful content and fail to remove it, they lose immunity.

   • X’s Objection:

     • Argues that SAHYOG bypasses Section 69A of the IT Act, which:

       • Allows blocking only on specific grounds: national security, public order, etc.

       • Includes procedural safeguards: written orders, designated officer, and review mechanism.

     • SAHYOG allows multiple agencies, including state police, to issue takedown requests without procedural checks.

   • Case Reference:
     In Shabana vs Govt of NCT of Delhi, Delhi HC had asked for a real-time coordination mechanism, which led to the development of SAHYOG.

UPSC Syllabus (GS Paper II & III):

• GS II: Issues related to governance, transparency, and accountability in social media regulation.

• GS III: Role of IT Act in cyber regulation, misuse of digital platforms, ethical use of AI and algorithms in content moderation.