The Delhi High Court reviewed X’s challenge against a 2019 order mandating global blocking of online content from the book ‘Godman to Tycoon.’ X argued this infringes on free speech and sets a dangerous precedent, advocating for geo-blocking instead. The order was originally issued due to allegations of defamation by Baba Ramdev and remains contested by major platforms.
Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday heard arguments from X (formerly Twitter) challenging a 2019 court order that mandated global blocking of online posts containing excerpts from the biographical book ‘Godman to Tycoon – The Untold Story of Baba Ramdev’. X contended that such an order could stifle public debate, legitimize authoritarian practices, and set a dangerous global precedent.
X argued that global takedowns violate the principles of freedom of speech and access to information. It stated:
“If courts in different countries can issue global blocking orders based on their local laws, it would result in a situation where the country with the most restrictive laws dictates internet content. Such a precedent cannot be allowed to flourish.”
The company emphasized that geo-blocking, rather than global blocking, is a sufficient remedy for addressing concerns about online content in specific jurisdictions.
In 2018, Justice Anu Malhotra had issued an injunction against Juggernaut Books, the publisher of the biography authored by Priyanka Pathak Narain, restraining it from publishing, selling, or distributing the book in India. The injunction was based on allegations by Baba Ramdev that parts of the book contained “unfounded claims” about the death of his ally Shankar Dev Ji and the disappearance of his guru, Swami Yogananda.
Later, in 2019, Justice Prathiba Singh extended this order, directing Twitter, Facebook, Google, and YouTube to globally block references to the book to ensure such content could not be accessed from India, even via VPNs.
X’s counsel noted that the Information Technology Act (IT Act) does not list defamation as an offence under its Chapter XI provisions and that the 2019 order conflicts with the Supreme Court’s precedent in Bloomberg Television v. Zee Entertainment, which discouraged ex-parte injunctions unless the respondent’s defence would certainly fail in trial.
X also pointed out that the book remains accessible on various platforms worldwide, rendering the global blocking order “futile and unnecessary.”
The 2019 order has been challenged by X, Google, and Facebook, with further hearings scheduled for December 19.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE