Today, On 3rd April, The Karnataka High Court denied interim protection to Elon Musk’s social media platform, X (formerly Twitter), in its legal battle with the Indian government over content takedown orders. The court’s decision means X must comply with the existing directives while the case continues. X has argued that India’s regulatory framework for content moderation lacks clarity. The ruling marks a significant development in the ongoing debate over digital freedom and government regulations.
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has declined to grant interim protection to Elon Musk’s social media platform, X (formerly Twitter), in its ongoing legal battle with the Indian government regarding content takedown orders.
X argues that while it is dedicated to following local laws, the regulatory framework in India is ambiguous.
Justice M Nagaprasanna was reviewing X Corp’s petition that contests the requirement to compulsorily register on the Sahyog portal. This platform enables government agencies to issue orders for blocking content on internet intermediaries such as X.
The company claims that Section 69A of the Information Technology Act includes provisions for content takedown with safeguards, but alleges that the government is circumventing these protections by issuing orders under Section 79.
Senior Advocate KG Raghavan, representing X Corp, contended that the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Section 69A of the IT Act in the Shreya Singhal case specifically because it includes built-in safeguards for issuing blocking orders.
He noted that even ex-parte blocking orders require justification through post-decisional hearings under this provision. Raghavan questioned whether these safeguards could be overlooked when the government issues blocking orders under Section 79(3)(b).
He urged the Court to prevent the Centre from taking any coercive measures against X concerning blocking orders unless they are in accordance with Section 69A of the IT Act.
He stated,
“The interim prayer is innocuous. It does not affect adversely any concern expressed by the Union of India. The concern of the Union of India is legitimate – no one can say I won’t comply with the laws of this country. If you want to do business in this country, you have to comply. We are all on the same side, that nothing can be done which adversely affects the country… All we are saying is – the law is completely codified in Section 69A of the IT Act,”
Raghavan emphasized that X Corp is committed to adhering to Indian laws, including regulations against offensive content and deepfakes. However, he argued that content blocking orders should not be issued solely based on Section 79(3)(b) as an independent provision.
Raghavan asserted,
“We are not supporting any unlawful act. We are only on the manner in which power under Section 79(3)(b) is exercised,”
The Central government was represented by Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General of India Aravind Kamath.
Previously, X had voiced concerns about the government’s ‘Sahyog’ portal, which is intended to facilitate content removal requests. The platform contends that this system enables numerous officials, including tax officers, to issue takedown orders, which could lead to arbitrary censorship.
Also Read: Elon Musk Vs Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar Over EVM Hacking In India
In contrast, the Indian government maintains that the portal aims to streamline compliance and that all social media companies are required to follow the nation’s laws unless a court decides otherwise.
The Karnataka High Court’s recent ruling to deny interim protection means that, for the time being, X must continue to adhere to the government’s takedown orders while the case is ongoing.
According to the IT Act, Section 69A gives the government the power to block public access to digital content if it is considered a threat to national security, sovereignty, or public order. However, this section is regulated under the 2009 Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, which ensure that blocking decisions undergo a structured review process.
Also Read: Elon Musk Faces Major Legal Battle Over Alleged Unconstitutional Role in US Government
Key Allegations by X
The lawsuit makes several key allegations:
- Misuse of Section 79(3)(b): X claims that this provision, meant to protect social media platforms from liability, is being misused to create an unlawful parallel system for blocking information.
- Bypassing Section 69A: The platform argues that “Section 79(3)(b) does not authorize the government to issue information-blocking orders.” According to X, these powers are exclusively governed by Section 69A, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal case, provided all safeguards are followed.
- MeitY’s Role: X alleges that the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has directed central and state agencies, including local police, to issue content-blocking orders under Section 79(3)(b) instead of following the Section 69A process.
- Template Blocking Orders: X has also claimed that MeitY has provided a “template blocking order” to help authorities issue takedown requests, which the platform argues violates the Supreme Court ruling.
- Challenging Sahyog Portal: X has contested the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Sahyog Portal, stating that it creates an “impermissible parallel mechanism to Section 69A” that lacks the necessary procedural safeguards.
Case Title: X Corp v. Union of India
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
