The Centre told the Delhi High Court that X failed to act despite “actual knowledge” of controversial tweets by Rana Ayyub. It warned that this inaction could lead to loss of safe harbour protection under IT laws.
The Delhi High Court on Friday heard an important case involving social media platform X Corp, journalist Rana Ayyub, and the Central government over controversial tweets related to Hindu deities and historical figures.
During the hearing, the Central government and Delhi Police argued that X may lose its legal protection, known as “safe harbour,” in India. This protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act allows platforms to avoid liability for user-generated content, provided they follow due diligence rules.
The government submitted before Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav that the police had already issued notices to X in September 2025 and December 2025, asking it to remove Ayyub’s allegedly offensive tweets. It further informed the Court that in January 2025, a trial court had ordered registration of an FIR against Ayyub regarding these posts.
According to the government, these notices and the court order clearly amount to “actual knowledge” under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. Once a platform has such knowledge, it is legally required to act quickly and remove unlawful content.
The Centre stated that since X failed to act even after receiving “actual knowledge”, it did not comply with due diligence requirements. The government emphasized,
“It is apposite to note that such inaction amounts to non-compliance with the due diligence requirements provided for in the applicable Rules and facilitates continues commission of unlawful acts by its user i.e. Rana Ayyub (Respondent No. 04) and a consequence thereof the protection of safe harbor available to the intermediary available under Section 79(1) is liable to be withdrawn.”
Earlier, during the hearing on April 8, the High Court had made strong observations about the tweets. The Court said that Ayyub’s posts were “highly derogatory, inflammatory and communal” and directed both the authorities and X to take appropriate steps.
The Court further stressed the urgency of the matter and said,
“The action is necessary in view of the highly derogatory, inflammatory and communal tweets posted by Respondent Number 4 [Rana Ayyub] pursuant to which an FIR has been registered on the orders of a competent court. The matter requires urgent consideration. The official who represents Delhi Police is also directed to transmit necessary directions to Respondent Number 3 (X Corp). Let Delhi Police also be impleaded as a party,”
the Court had ordered.
In response, X filed its reply stating that the writ petition is not maintainable against the platform. It argued that the case should instead be directed against Ayyub, who created and uploaded the content.
X also submitted that the Delhi Police should follow the proper legal route under Section 69A of the IT Act and the 2009 Blocking Rules if they want content to be removed. This provision allows the government to block online content in the interest of national security, public order, and other specified grounds.
Senior advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for Ayyub, also argued that the writ petition itself is not maintainable.
After hearing all parties, the High Court granted Ayyub two weeks to file her detailed reply, including arguments on whether the petition is legally maintainable. The next hearing in the matter has been scheduled for May 19.
The case originates from a complaint filed by advocate Amita Sachdeva. She had earlier approached the Saket Court seeking criminal action against Ayyub. Based on her complaint, the trial court directed registration of an FIR and asked the police to investigate.
Later, the Delhi Police informed the Court that the tweets in question were no longer available on X.
Sachdeva has alleged that Ayyub’s tweets insulted Hindu deities such as Sita and Ram, as well as historical figure VD Savarkar, and promoted “anti-India” sentiments. She stated,
“That upon reading the contents of the tweets, the Petitioner, being a follower of Sanatan Dharma, was deeply hurt and aggrieved as the posts prima facie contain insults against Hindu Deities, revered historical figures, and are capable of promoting communal disharmony,”
The petition specifically refers to six tweets posted by Ayyub between 2013 and 2017.
One tweet from 2013 stated,
“Ravana didn’t touch Sita even though he could. Ram didn’t stand for Sita even though he should have. Ravana 1 Ram 0.”
In October 2014, Ayyub quoted a couplet by poet Ali Sardar Jafri, writing,
“Gareeb Sita ke ghar pe kab tak rahegi Ravan ki hukmrani, Draupadi ka libas uske badan se kab tak chhina karega”.
In 2015, she made remarks about VD Savarkar, including,
“So Veer Savarkar advocated rape as necessary component of Hindutva nationalism.”
In another tweet about Savarkar, she wrote,
“Was reading Nathuram Godse’s account of Savarkar & wondering if we shud continue to honour the terrorist sympathiser”
In 2016, she posted a tweet along with an image of an injured boy, stating,
“Dear Indian army, am guessing this young kid was quite a threat to the sovereignty of India to be blinded for life.”
The matter continues to raise significant legal questions about the responsibility of social media platforms, the limits of free speech, and the scope of intermediary liability under Indian law.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Rana Ayyub
