Social media platform X, owned by Elon Musk, has initiated legal action against the Indian government, challenging its methods of ordering content blocking on the platform. The company filed a petition with the Karnataka High Court, alleging that the government is misusing the Information Technology (IT) Act to impose arbitrary censorship, which harms X’s business model and undermines free speech principles.
X’s primary contention revolves around the government’s frequent invocation of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. This section stipulates that intermediaries like social media platforms can lose their “safe harbor” protection – which shields them from liability for user-generated content – if they fail to remove or disable access to unlawful content upon receiving notification from the government or its agencies.
However, X argues that this provision does not grant the government the power to directly order content blocking. Instead, the company claims that authorities are improperly using this section to bypass the more structured and legally defined process outlined in Section 69A of the same Act. Section 69A empowers the government to block public access to online content in the interest of national security, integrity, sovereignty, and public order. This section is governed by specific rules established in 2009, which include a review committee process before any blocking orders are issued.
According to X’s petition, the government’s reliance on Section 79(3)(b) creates an “unlawful parallel content-blocking mechanism” that circumvents the safeguards embedded in Section 69A. The company asserts that this practice violates the Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 Shreya Singhal judgment. This judgment upheld the validity of Section 69A but emphasized the need for clearly defined procedures and limitations on content blocking.
X highlights that unlike Section 69A, which restricts blocking to specific grounds and mandates a thorough review process, Section 79(3)(b) lacks such clear limitations, including a precise definition of what constitutes an “unlawful act.” This absence of clarity, X argues, allows for broad and unchecked censorship, posing a significant threat to the free flow of information in India.
Furthermore, X has raised concerns about the Indian government’s push for the platform to join the Sahyog portal. This portal, developed by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), aims to “streamline” the process of issuing orders under Section 79(3)(b). X has labeled Sahyog a “Censorship Portal,” arguing that there is no legal basis for its creation or for compelling social media companies to appoint specific nodal officers for this portal. X maintains that it has already designated the necessary officers in compliance with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
During a court hearing on March 17, Justice M Nagaprasanna granted X the liberty to approach the court if the government takes any “precipitative action” against the company for not joining the Sahyog portal. The government, however, stated during the hearing that no punitive measures have been taken against X for its refusal.
In its legal challenge, X has also accused the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) of actively encouraging various government bodies, including central ministries, state governments, and police chiefs, to utilize Section 79(3)(b) for content removal. X presented evidence of this, including three content blocking orders issued by the Railways ministry in February 2024, which were also sent to MeitY. The company argues that this directive from MeitY improperly delegates powers that the ministry itself does not possess under the IT Act.
X contends that the government’s actions are directly harming its ability to operate in India. The company’s business model relies on users being able to share lawful information, and it fears that arbitrary blocking orders will damage its platform and erode user trust. X believes that the current system renders Section 69A “otiose, ineffective, and meaningless” because the safeguards intended by the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal case are being bypassed.
This legal battle is not the first instance of friction between X and the Indian government regarding content regulation. In 2022, X challenged the legality of government orders issued under Section 69A that sought to block entire user accounts rather than specific posts. The Karnataka High Court, in that instance, ruled in favor of the government, upholding its authority to block entire accounts and imposing a significant cost on X.
The current lawsuit highlights the ongoing tension between the Indian government’s desire to regulate online content for various reasons, including national security and public order, and social media platforms’ commitment to freedom of expression and their business interests. The outcome of this legal challenge could have significant implications for the future of content regulation in India and the operational environment for social media companies.
Legal experts suggest that the case will likely focus on the interpretation of Sections 79(3)(b) and 69A of the IT Act and whether the government’s current practices align with the principles of due process and the Supreme Court’s directives. The court will need to determine if Section 79(3)(b) can be used as an independent content blocking mechanism or if it is solely intended to define the conditions under which intermediaries can lose their safe harbor protection.
The hearing on X’s arguments against the Sahyog portal is expected towards the end of April, according to Justice Pratibha M Singh. This case will be closely watched by technology companies, civil society organizations, and users concerned about the balance between government regulation and online freedom in India.
