Solicitor General Tushar Mehta revealed a fake, verified X account created in the name of the 'Supreme Court of Karnataka' to highlight the dangers of unchecked online activity during a hearing on X Corp's petition challenging government takedown orders.
'The moment they fall foul of the party in power, they become unsafe. Then nobody can guarantee their safety.'
Social media giant 'X' (formerly Twitter) has filed a lawsuit in the Karnataka High Court against the Government of India, challenging what it called unlawful content regulation and arbitrary censorship. The lawsuit argues that the government's use of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act violates Supreme Court rulings and undermines free expression online. 'X' further claims that the government's Sahyog portal acts as a "censorship tool" that pressures platforms to remove content without proper legal review.
The Indian government has said that social media platform X will be held responsible for content generated by its artificial intelligence tool Grok. This comes after users on X asked Grok questions about Indian politicians and the AI platform responded with "unpalatable" answers. The government is currently in discussion with X to understand and assess how Grok works. The government has previously taken action against social media platforms for AI-generated content that has been deemed offensive. In this case, the government is considering holding X accountable for Grok's content, even though it is generated by an AI tool. The government's stance is likely to have implications for other social media platforms that use AI tools.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed no citizen can be prosecuted under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which it had scrapped way back in 2015.
'It does two things that even our erstwhile colonial masters did not deem fit for their subjects: The Bill does away with any checks or balances on the exercise of interception and surveillance powers, including any penalty whatsoever for unauthorised interception, opening, scrutiny, or destruction of postal materials.'
The Special Marriage Act, 1954 provides a legal framework for the marriage of people belonging to different religions or castes. It governs a civil marriage where the state sanctions the marriage rather than the religion.
The Supreme Court on Monday termed as 'amazing' and 'shocking' that people are still being booked under the Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, which was scrapped by the apex court verdict in 2015.
Women are a minuscule minority of those arrested under the IT Act.
Senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for Twitter on Monday online, argued the company was following the rules laid out in the Information Technology Act.
The ministry of home affairs has requested states and Union Territories (UTs) to direct all police stations under their jurisdiction not to register cases under the repealed Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, a home ministry statement said.
Calling a "matter of serious concern" the registration of FIRs under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act it had scrapped in 2015, The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the chief secretaries of states concerned to take back the cases within three weeks.
Sorabjee had been honoured with Padma Vibhushan in 2002 for his defence of the freedom of expression and the protection of human rights.
'The cases have not reduced because the prosecution has found some other way to stop people from using their right to free speech.'
'The Vision of Justice was indeed attained in the courtroom.' 'Not once, but multiple times.' 'But has it translated into reality?' 'Has the success of these sterling verdicts reached the ground?' asks Justice Ranjan Gogoi, the next Chief Justice of India.
'Soli steadfastly believed in Voltaire's famous dictum that he would disagree violently with anyone but defend to death that person's right to disagree with him.'
Extreme political views and decent humour in the cyber world cannot be prohibited, Centre told the Supreme Court on Tuesday while making out a case for blocking outrageous and offensive contents hurting religious sentiments.
'I am ecstatic as I believe this is not my victory but it is a win for the people of the country who have a right to freely express themselves. It is the victory for everyone who uses the internet and social media.' 'I think the internet is all about self regulation, and as long it is about people expressing themselves and not causing any criminal harm to anyone, it should be allowed.' Shreya Singhal, whose PIL resulted in Section 66A of the IT Act being struck down by the Supreme Court, speaks to Upasna Pandey.
'My son did not write the post at all. He just shared it. Somebody else had written it.'
Sharma was arrested on May 10 by the West Bengal Police under section 500 (defamation) of the IPC and under other provisions of the Information Technology Act on the complaint of a local Trinamool Congress leader Vibhas Hazra.
The government claims the existing safeguards under the law are adequate, lawful, towards a legitimate purpose and provide for a "proportionate interference" in citizens' right to privacy, reports Nitin Sethi.
In what is the first ever verdict in India on the right to freedom of speech on the Internet, the Supreme Court has scrapped Section 66 A of the IT Act. Justices J Chelameswar and Rohinton F Nariman said that 66 A cannot be properly implemented as governments come and go.
'The best remedy would be to scrap Section 124-A of the IPC, a colonial vestige, altogether.' 'However, if legislators don't want to do so, they can do two things.' 'They can formally amend Section 124-A to bring it in line with what the Supreme Court has said about sedition.' 'The words which stand on the statute book today were inserted in 1898.' 'The Supreme Court's words are not a part of Section 124-A.'
'Criticism that Amnesty is interested in those in favour of independence for Kashmir is unfounded.'
© 2026 Rediff.com - Investor Information - Advertise with us - Disclaimer - Privacy Policy - Sitemap - Feedback - About us - Terms of use - Grievances