The central government, in its ongoing legal clash with social media platform X Corp, presented a striking demonstration in the Karnataka High Court on Friday, highlighting the potential for misuse and misinformation on digital platforms. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta revealed that the government had created a fake, yet verified, account in the name of the "Supreme Court of Karnataka" on X.

Mehta argued that this illustrated how easily digital platforms could be exploited to spread misinformation and deceive the public. "We created this account. It is verified. I can now post anything, and lakhs would believe that the Supreme Court of Karnataka has said it," he stated, emphasizing the anonymity and lack of accountability that can exist online. To further emphasize the point, Mehta informed the court that they had also created an "AI-generated video where Your Lordship appears to speak against the nation". He added, "It's unlawful, but it doesn't fit any category under Section 69A,".

Justice Nagaprasanna labeled the act in question as "unlawful" and AI-generated, prompting Mehta to clarify that the legal framework allows for both strict and mild responses.

This demonstration occurred during a hearing on X Corp's challenge to government takedown orders issued under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act. X Corp contends that Section 69A, along with the applicable IT Rules, provides the proper legal framework for issuing content blocking directives.

Senior Advocate KG Raghavan, representing X Corp, objected to the presentation of the fake account without proper scrutiny or context. "You cannot pass this off to the Court without scrutiny or context," he stated. While acknowledging the potential for misuse on digital platforms, Raghavan pointed out that misinformation isn't exclusive to the online world, referencing a 2002 case involving false reporting by the press. He later informed the court that X had removed the fake account in question.

The SG clarified that the account had not been used to post any messages and was solely created to demonstrate the ease with which such accounts can be created and verified. The court acknowledged this, stating that it was only an illustration and would not prejudice X's case. "Their submission is creation of such things in intermediary is easy," the judge said.

Mehta reiterated the Centre's position that the internet allows each individual to be a publisher, printer, producer, director, and broadcaster of content without any statutory regulation, making it easy to "invade upon the privacy" of any individual. He also argued that there are instances of internet usage that may not fall strictly under Section 69A or may not warrant the harshest step of blocking or imprisonment.

The Centre also argued that reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression must evolve with technology. The Solicitor General said that chilling effect on free speech cannot be an absolute defense against reasonable restrictions.

X has sought a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act does not authorize the issuance of information blocking orders and that such orders can only be issued after following the procedure under Section 69A of the Act, read with the IT Rules.