X Corp vs. Union Of India - LIVE UPDATES From Karnataka High Court

SG Tushar Mehta: I can show you much more than this which will be disturbing

Raghavan: Pls see 79(3)(b). No concept of nodal officer found here as found in 69A.

SG: the two annexures i will withdraw if it is troubling my friend. it was only for illustration.

Raghavan: pls eschew from record of court

Raghavan: Now it empowers a tax recovery officer to issue blocking orders against us. Tomm it can be clerk and tehsildar.

HC: nodal officer notified by GOI? We will see. 

HC: other than r 15 r16 what would require rejoinder? SG is appearing?

Counsel: yes

raghavan: i havent had time to read the whole thing. I really dont know. This is the trend of objections. This is mud slinging against us 

Raghavan: one url is deleted doesnt mean all photos go. you cant put 1 url and say it refers to 3 posts…The reason im saying i want to file rejoinder is because of this (counter). We dont support such nonsense material but let us do it as per law.

Raghavan: we were told now in counter, this is what is troubling us. We dont support any of this(material put by Govt). We have difficulty even as per our own terms. This just gives address of 1 website.

Raghavan: Govt has put material before your lordship material which is obnoxious

Raghavan: the court says I agree with petitioner, and this has been affirmed by third judge.

HC: where is third judge’s view(J Chandurkar). Where is divergent opinion?

Sradv: J Gokhale takes a different view. Third judge says he agrees with Justice Patel

Sr adv: submission is made here which is not tenable in law- ‘What does it matter if content is there why are you jumping on removal of safe harbour’. This is actually hitting at issue of free speech on the internet.

Raghavan continues to read the Bombay HC’s ruling.

HC: this J GS Patel. He is the one that struck down.

Sr adv: J Gokhale upheld. Third judge agreed with J Patel.