A courtroom demonstration meant to warn against misinformation on social media took an unexpected turn Friday when the platform X (formerly Twitter) suspended a fake account created by India’s solicitor general before the hearing even ended.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta presented a fictional X handle named “Supreme Court of Karnataka” during a Karnataka High Court hearing to argue how quickly false information can circulate.
“This is a fake account. It has the court’s name, the court’s picture, and looks real. Twitter allowed it. I could post anything, and people would believe the court said it,” Mehta told Justice M Nagaprasanna, handing over his phone during the session.
Mehta’s point was clear: social media platforms need stricter oversight. But the move stirred concerns.
Senior advocate KG Raghavan, representing X Corp, questioned the method. “Creating fake handles just to make a point? That itself is troubling,” he said.
Then came a surprise. Just as the hearing wrapped up, Raghavan announced that the handle had already been suspended.
“We are a responsible organisation,” he said, drawing light laughter from the bench. He added that the account had not been verified, contrary to what Mehta claimed.
Mehta responded that the account was never meant to be used publicly. It was, he said, “purely demonstrative.”
Still, the point had been made. And it wasn’t only about fake handles. Mehta went on to question X’s accountability, asking what happens when anonymous users post illegal content.
“Who does the victim sue? X has no local presence except one grievance officer. Where is the accountability in that?” he said.
The hearing is part of a broader legal battle over the Union government’s Sahyog portal, which X calls a censorship tool. The company claims the portal enables thousands of government officials to issue takedown requests without judicial or regulatory checks.
X is the only major platform resisting the portal. The government says 38 others, including Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Telegram, have signed on. Meta is testing integration.
Mehta pushed back against X’s objections. He said the company complies with local laws in other countries but resists India’s system.
“All others joined Sahyog. X refused. They don’t want to even join a voluntary framework,” he said.
X argues that Sahyog violates free speech and bypasses legal protections. They cite Section 69A of the IT Act, which requires a legal process before content removal. The Supreme Court upheld that safeguard in the Shreya Singhal ruling.
X contends the government is now creating a parallel system through Section 79(3)(b), one that allows mass content removal without court orders.
In its March petition, X challenged the government’s directive requiring all intermediaries to join Sahyog.
The solicitor general, for his part, questioned whether X even has a right to approach the court under constitutional protections.
“They say they are intermediaries, not authors or speakers. If that’s the case, how can they claim free speech rights?” Mehta asked.
He also argued that the Constitution mainly protects Indian citizens or Indian-incorporated companies. Since X isn’t based in India, he claimed it lacks standing to invoke Articles 14, 19, or 21.
This dispute over speech, regulation, and platform responsibility now moves to its next stage. The Karnataka High Court will hear the case again on July 25, when X is expected to file its rejoinder.
