Bengaluru (PTI): Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta on Friday highlighted the dangers of unchecked online activity by revealing to the Karnataka High Court that a fake, yet verified, X (formerly Twitter) account was successfully created in the name of the "Supreme Court of Karnataka."

Appearing for the Centre in its ongoing face-off with social media giant X Corp, Mehta presented the account as evidence of how easily digital platforms can be misused to mislead 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," Mehta argued, underscoring the anonymity and lack of accountability that currently exists online.

The dramatic reveal came during a hearing on X Corp's petition challenging takedown orders issued by government officials under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act. X Corp contends that only the procedure under Section 69A of the Act, read with the IT Rules, allows for content blocking orders.

Mehta reiterated the Centre's longstanding concern--first raised in the landmark Shreya Singhal case--that internet users act as their own publisher, printer, and broadcaster, making regulatory oversight complex but necessary.

He insisted that the fake account was never used to post content and was created solely to demonstrate how such impersonation can occur within minutes.

Senior Advocate KG Raghavan, representing X Corp, objected strongly to the tactic, arguing that such material cannot be introduced across the bar without being formally placed on record. "You cannot pass this off to the Court without scrutiny or context," he said.

Justice M Nagaprasanna, who is presiding over the matter, acknowledged Raghavan's concern but clarified that the example was presented only illustratively and would not affect the merits of X's case. "Their point is that creation of such fake accounts is far too easy," he observed.

The judge also drew parallels with concerns raised in the Proton Mail case, where anonymous emails containing morphed and pornographic images were sent en masse. "The problem of anonymity remains," he noted.

Raghavan, while conceding that such misuse exists, reminded the court that the offline world--particularly the press--has had its own lapses in the past. He cited a 2002 case where the High Court had initiated contempt proceedings over false media reporting.

Later in the hearing, Raghavan informed the court that the fake account in question had been taken down by X.

Pressing the Centre's argument further, Tushar Mehta said many instances of online harm fall into a regulatory grey area--not qualifying for blocking under Section 69A, yet still posing grave risks. "We have created an AI-generated video where Your Lordship appears to speak against the nation.

It's unlawful, but it doesn't fit any category under Section 69A," he told the court.

Justice Nagaprasanna responded, "That is an unlawful AI-generated act." Mehta explained that the legal framework includes both severe and minimal interventions, and advocated for cautious, proportionate responses in certain cases. "Don't block or jail them immediately. Just caution them," he said, to which the judge agreed--but added, "Still, it remains unlawful." The SG argued that platforms like X cannot shield themselves using Section 79's safe harbour provisions when they fail to meet the conditions of sub-sections (2) and (3). "If a citizen comes to court, the intermediary must defend its conduct. They may succeed, but they must face scrutiny," he said.

The matter is scheduled to continue on July 25.