According to the government, this term is “unfortunate and condemnable.” The affidavit further argued that X’s concerns about censorship are baseless and misleading.
NEW DELHI: The Central Government has strongly opposed the censorship claims made by Elon Musk-owned social media platform X (formerly Twitter).
In an affidavit submitted to the Karnataka High Court, the government criticized X for calling its Sahyog portal a “censorship portal.”
According to the government, this term is “unfortunate and condemnable.” The affidavit further argued that X’s concerns about censorship are baseless and misleading.
The affidavit filed by the government stated:
“It is submitted that by raising a groundless concern of censorship, the petitioner is attempting to conflate its position with that of a user who posts content on its platform, which it is not. It is submitted that the use of the said terminology by a worldwide portal like ‘X’ is unfortunate and condemnable.”
This response was filed in reaction to X’s plea against the Sahyog portal. X argued that the government is bypassing the legal safeguards under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) by using Sahyog to block information without proper procedures.
X also contended that the portal and the government’s actions violate the legal framework established by the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.
The government countered X’s assertion that Section 79 of the IT Act only exempts intermediaries from liability for third-party content and does not grant the government the power to issue content removal orders outside of Section 69A.
“It is submitted that the ostensible purpose of the present petition appears to be the blanket right to claim safe harbour protections without any responsibility on the intermediary themselves. It is submitted that the same is fundamentally flawed and against the basic concept of safe harbour itself.”
The government emphasized that X, being a foreign company, does not have the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Indian Constitution.
“The only statutory right it has is conferred to it under Section 79 of the IT Act 2000, which does not empower it to solicit hosting or defend removal of the information & data of third party hosted on its platform. It is submitted that the intermediary as per the scheme of the IT Act has no right or locus, at all, to take up the case of its users against any orders passed by the competent authority under section 79 of the Act or else it loses its safe harbour protection.”
The government further clarified that the safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act is conditional. It argued that intermediaries must exercise due diligence to be eligible for this protection.
“It is submitted that the concept of ‘safe harbour’ is intrinsically hedged with responsibilities which are placed on intermediary. It is submitted that therefore, ‘safe harbour’ is always a conditional protection, available only when due diligence is demonstrably exercised by any intermediary. It is submitted that the same is not a constitutional right, not a part of Article 19(1)(a) and totally a function of local prevailing statute in any country where the intermediary is operating.”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
