Elon Musk’s X challenges Karnataka High Court order, calling the new social media rules unconstitutional, citing ‘no legal basis’ and defending free speech and online expression in India.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Karnataka High Court recently ruled that social media companies “cannot be allowed to work unregulated in India.” The decision, which came in response to a plea by Elon Musk-owned X (formerly Twitter), has sparked intense debate on the balance between freedom of speech and government oversight in the digital space.
X’s Concerns
X expressed deep concern over the High Court order, claiming that it allows “arbitrary takedown orders” through a secretive online portal called Sahyog. This federal agency portal, designed to tackle cybercrime, enables officers to demand content removal based solely on allegations of “illegality,” without any judicial review or due process. According to X, this framework:
- Circumvents Section 69A of the Information Technology Act
- Contravenes previous Supreme Court rulings
- Infringes on Indian citizens’ constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression
The platform emphasized that officers can threaten social media companies with criminal liability for non-compliance. X maintains that while it “respects and complies with Indian law,” the High Court order ignores core constitutional issues and contradicts recent rulings, such as the Bombay High Court’s decision declaring a similar regime unconstitutional.
Karnataka HC’s Perspective
The Karnataka High Court, however, highlighted the need for regulation, particularly in cases concerning offenses against women. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while dictating the order, stressed that:
“Social media needs to be regulated… failing which the right to dignity, as ordained in the Constitution of a citizen, gets railroaded.”
The court maintained that regulation of communication has historically been a matter of governance, irrespective of the medium. The Centre also opposed X’s plea, asserting that unlawful or illegal content cannot enjoy the same constitutional protection as legitimate speech.
