Key Points:
- X Corp (formerly Twitter) files a petition in Karnataka High Court against the Indian government.
- Alleges misuse of IT Act’s Section 79(3)(b) and Sahyog Portal to bypass legal safeguards for content takedowns.
- Claims government actions violate Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling on content blocking under Section 69A.
- Next hearing scheduled for March 27; case could set a major precedent for digital governance in India.
Bangaluru: Elon Musk-owned X (formerly Twitter) has escalated its legal battle against the Indian government, filing a petition in the Karnataka High Court alleging that authorities are misusing the Information Technology (IT) Act and the Sahyog Portal to enforce arbitrary content takedowns. X argues that these actions create an “unlawful and unregulated censorship mechanism” that bypasses statutory safeguards and violates constitutional rights.
Core Allegations by X Corp
X Corp’s petition focuses on the government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, which mandates that platforms remove unlawful content when directed by authorities or risk losing their “safe harbor” protection under Section 79(1). However, X contends that this provision does not grant the government independent powers to block content and is being misused to sidestep Section 69A the only legally recognized framework for content blocking as per the Supreme Court’s landmark Shreya Singhal v. Union of India judgment in 2015.
Section 69A requires procedural safeguards such as recording reasons in writing, providing pre-decisional hearings, and judicial scrutiny. X claims these safeguards are being ignored, effectively nullifying the Supreme Court’s directives.
Concerns Over Sahyog Portal
A major contention in X’s petition is the Sahyog Portal, an online system managed by India’s Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The portal allows state police and government departments to issue takedown requests directly, bypassing the structured process under Section 69A. X has labeled Sahyog a “Censorship Portal,” arguing that it enables thousands of officials to order content removals without transparency or oversight.
X also opposes the government’s demand to appoint a dedicated “Nodal Officer” for compliance with Sahyog directives, stating this requirement lacks legal basis and imposes undue burdens on platforms.
Legal Context and Past Disputes
This is not X’s first legal challenge against India’s content regulation policies. In 2022, X contested takedown orders issued under Section 69A, arguing they lacked transparency and violated free speech protections under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The current case builds on those concerns, with X asserting that misuse of Section 79(3)(b) infringes on both free speech and equality before the law (Article 14).
The petition also highlights concerns about politically sensitive responses generated by X’s AI chatbot, Grok, which critics argue could lead to misinformation or offensive content. X maintains that any regulatory action must follow due process and cannot be enforced arbitrarily.
Government Response and Court Proceedings
During an initial hearing, government representatives stated that no punitive action had been taken against X for not integrating with the Sahyog Portal. The Karnataka High Court granted X the liberty to challenge any future coercive measures by authorities. The next hearing is scheduled for March 27.
Implications for Digital Governance
This case has far-reaching implications for digital governance in India. If successful, it could limit the government’s ability to impose arbitrary content takedowns and reinforce judicial oversight over online censorship mechanisms. Legal experts believe this case could set a precedent for balancing national security concerns with freedom of expression in India’s rapidly evolving digital landscape.
As this legal battle unfolds, it will be closely watched by global technology companies, civil rights organizations, and governments worldwide. The outcome could redefine how India regulates social media platforms while ensuring accountability and transparency in digital governance.
