At the hearing, representing the central government, Solicitor-General Tushar Mhta appeared before Justice Nagaprassana.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is completely uncontrollable. In some cases, lawyers use AI to research. It will give me a false judgment if I input my facts.

The SG made submissions to X Corp in response to its plea for a declaration that Sec 79(3) (b) IT Act doesn't confer authority on issuing information blocking orders. Such orders can be issued only after following the procedures under Section 69A r/w IT Rules.

SG Mehta then cited an "example of a fake video" of "Ukraine’s President" as well as examples of "clickbait posts".

He then said: "I am showing you these examples to show that the situation at the time when US Judgement (Reno), Shreya and I were different, and the time now is also different." This is not intended to cause prejudice.

He said it was a penal section case. In this case, the US Supreme Court ruled in the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that the anti-indecency sections violated the First Amendment.

SG read out observations from the judgment which stated that "Around 40 million people were using the Internet during the trial. This number is expected to grow to 200 million in 1999...Moreover the Internet isn't as invasive as radio or TV".

At this point, the court orally stated, : "The Internet started as a military project in 1970. Then, a modem worked at KBS speed, we are now in nano bites...Now, radio and television have been oblivion."

Referring to the pleas for the right to be forgotten, the Solicitor-General said: "There's a growing concept called the 'Right to be Forgotten.' Imagine if a police officer was arrested for corruption and acquitted after a few years. This concept is on the rise".