Bengaluru, March 20 — Social media platform X (formerly Twitter), owned by US billionaire Elon Musk, has filed a lawsuit in the Karnataka High Court against the Government of India (GOI), accusing it of enforcing arbitrary content regulation and bypassing legal safeguards.
The platform challenged GOI’s interpretation of the Information Technology (IT) Act, particularly Section 79(3)(b), which it claims is being misused to create a parallel content-blocking system. X argued this practice violates the Supreme Court’s 2015 Shreya Singhal ruling, which mandates that online content can only be blocked through a structured legal process under Section 69A.
“Section 79(3)(b) does not grant the government independent authority to block content,” X stated in its petition, alleging that GOI is exploiting the provision to impose censorship without proper judicial oversight.
Under Section 69A, the government can block public access to digital content deemed a threat to national security, sovereignty, or public order. However, this requires a review process under the 2009 IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules. X claims GOI is sidestepping this framework by relying on Section 79(3)(b) to compel platforms to remove content without adequate scrutiny.
The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B) has defended its stance, arguing that Section 79(3)(b) mandates platforms to take down illegal content when directed by a court or government order. Non-compliance within 36 hours, the ministry warned, could strip platforms of their safe harbor protection under Section 79(1), making them liable under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Another key element in X’s lawsuit is its opposition to the government’s Sahyog portal, launched by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the Ministry of Home Affairs. Designed to streamline takedown requests, the portal enables direct communication between law enforcement agencies and social media platforms.
X refused to onboard an employee onto the portal, calling it a “censorship tool” that pressures platforms into removing content without legal review.
The lawsuit argued that the portal serves as yet another mechanism for the government to control online discourse without judicial scrutiny.
