Photo Credit: Reuters
In a courtroom exchange that has drawn more attention for its tone than its legal import, a senior counsel representing X (formerly Twitter) described the Centre’s content takedown notices as coming from “every Tom, Dick and Harry officer.” The remark—intended to highlight the perceived arbitrariness of digital content takedown orders—was swiftly and sharply rebutted by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who reminded the court that these are “statutory functionaries,” not random individuals. The Karnataka High Court, too, echoed this sentiment, emphasizing respect for constitutional officeholders.
But while the phrase may have been colloquial and ill-advised in a legal forum, it inadvertently sparked a conversation worth having—about the expanding scope of executive power in regulating online content, and the pressing need to anchor this power in due process.
Language, Respect, and the Limits of Rhetoric
It must be acknowledged that courtroom language carries weight—not just in legal reasoning, but in tone and symbolism. The term “Tom, Dick and Harry” when used to describe officers of the government, risks undermining institutional dignity. It reflects, at worst, a dismissive stance toward the bureaucracy, and at best, a poor rhetorical choice for raising a valid point.
But language, even when flawed, should not eclipse substance.
The Core Concern: A Procedural Void
At the heart of X Corp’s submission is a critical and legitimate concern. The company argued that takedown orders issued under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act do not offer the procedural safeguards built into Section 69A—such as recorded reasons, opportunity to respond, and review by a committee. The concern is that without these checks, the authority to demand content removal could be used by virtually any empowered official, without transparency or accountability.
This isn’t just a platform’s worry—it should concern every citizen who values the principles of free expression and procedural fairness. The fear is not merely hypothetical. In recent years, India has seen a growing number of takedown requests, many without published reasons or avenues for appeal. In such a climate, the difference between regulation and censorship becomes perilously thin.
Respect for Office vs. Respect for Process
The Solicitor General was right to defend the dignity of government officers. But respect for office should not preclude questioning of overreach. If indeed officers are acting within statutory limits, then the clarity of those limits becomes all the more crucial. Ambiguity breeds friction. The controversy here is not about personalities but about process. The remedy lies not in silencing critique but in ensuring that the exercise of authority is structured, reviewable, and transparent.
The Need for Transparent Digital Governance
India, as one of the world’s largest digital democracies, needs a robust and predictable framework for content moderation—one that neither places blind trust in platforms nor permits unchecked power in government hands. In this context, some urgent reforms must be considered:
- Codify clear standards for when and how content can be taken down.
- Mandate public disclosure of takedown notices, except where national security is demonstrably at risk.
- Establish a quasi-judicial review mechanism for platforms and individuals to challenge questionable orders.
- Train designated officers in the legal and constitutional dimensions of speech rights to avoid misuse of delegated power.
In Conclusion: Let’s Not Miss the Forest for the Phrase
The courtroom may have taken offense at the phrase “Tom, Dick and Harry”—and rightly so—but the debate it opened must not be shut down in the name of decorum. The real issue is not the metaphor, but the mechanism. Digital governance must be exercised with the seriousness, restraint, and transparency that democratic societies demand. Both platforms and public authorities carry a burden of responsibility. One must not be arrogant, the other not overreaching. Somewhere between them lies the constitutional principle we must safeguard—that power must always be exercised with process, and rights must never be taken down without reason.
For more opinion stories click here
Follow us for latest updates:
