Karnataka High Court will hear X’s challenge to the Centre’s content blocking orders on April 3, 2025. The hearing was postponed today (mar 27) after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta requested an adjournment.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Karnataka: The Karnataka High Court has now fixed the date 3rd April 2025 for the next hearing in an important case between social media company X (earlier known as Twitter) and the Central Government of India. In this case, X is fighting against the government’s orders to remove or block some content on the platform.
These takedown or content-blocking orders were sent by the Central Government using its online system called the ‘Sahyog’ portal. X has raised concerns about these orders and has gone to court, saying that some of them may be against the law or go beyond what the government is allowed to do under the rules.
The hearing that was supposed to happen today did not take place. This happened because Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who is representing the Central Government in this case, asked the court to postpone the matter. The court agreed to his request and gave the new date for the hearing.
The court has now said that the case will be heard on 3rd April 2025.
This legal fight is being closely watched by many people because it brings up important questions about freedom of speech, internet rights, and how much control the government can have over content on social media platforms like X.
BACKGROUND
On 20th March, Social media platform ‘X‘ (previously known as Twitter), owned by billionaire Elon Musk, has filed a lawsuit in the Karnataka High Court against the Indian government. The company claims that the government is unfairly regulating online content and imposing censorship without following proper legal procedures.
X has raised concerns about the Indian government’s interpretation of the Information Technology (IT) Act, specifically Section 79(3)(b). According to X, the government is misusing this section to create a separate system for blocking online content, which goes against the Supreme Court’s rulings.
The company argues that this approach contradicts the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in the Shreya Singhal case, which clearly states that content can only be blocked through a proper judicial process or under Section 69A of the IT Act. X has alleged that the government is bypassing this legally defined process and blocking content arbitrarily.
ALSO READ: Elon Musk Vs Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar Over EVM Hacking In India
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B) has defended its actions, stating that
“Section 79(3)(b) mandates online platforms to remove illegal content when directed by either a court order or a government notification.”
The government also says that if platforms do not comply within 36 hours, they can lose their safe harbor protection under Section 79(1) and face legal consequences under various laws, including the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
However, X has contested this interpretation, arguing that this section does not give the government the authority to block content independently. The company has accused authorities of misusing the law to impose “arbitrary censorship without following due process.”
How Section 69A Differs
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.
X has claimed that the government is using Section 79(3)(b) as a shortcut to remove content without necessary legal scrutiny. This, according to the platform, is a clear violation of legal safeguards meant to prevent arbitrary censorship.
A major point in X’s legal challenge is its strong opposition to the government’s Sahyog Portal.
The Sahyog Portal, developed by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), was created to streamline takedown requests under Section 79(3)(b). This platform allows government agencies to directly communicate with social media platforms and request content removal.
However, X has refused to onboard an employee onto the Sahyog Portal and has claimed that it acts as a “censorship tool” that pressures platforms to remove content without proper legal review. The lawsuit argues that this is another attempt by the government to control online discussions without judicial oversight.
X Files Petition Against Sahyog Portal
X Corp has formally moved the Karnataka High Court to challenge the Central Government’s creation and use of the Sahyog Portal. The company argues that the portal allows agencies to issue content-blocking orders without following the safeguards mandated by Section 69A of the IT Act.
According to sources quoted by Bar & Bench, the lawsuit was filed after multiple takedown orders were issued by the Union Ministry of Railways following posts about the New Delhi Railway Station stampede.
The case was briefly heard by Justice M. Nagaprasanna on March 17, and it is now scheduled for a detailed hearing on March 27.
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.
Relief Claimed:
X has asked the Karnataka High Court for the following reliefs:
- A declaration that Section 79(3)(b) does not allow the government to issue content-blocking orders, which should only be governed by Section 69A.
- Quashing of the impugned notifications and preventing the government from taking any action against X related to the illegal blocking orders and the Sahyog Portal.
- Interim relief to stop the government from taking coercive action against X for not complying with takedown orders issued outside the Section 69A process.
- Restraining the government from forcing X to join the Sahyog Portal, which the company considers a censorship tool.
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Justice Yashwant Varma
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
