NEW DELHI: X Corp, formerly known as Twitter and now owned by Elon Musk, has filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court challenging the Indian government’s alleged misuse of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000. The company contends that this provision is being improperly applied to issue content-blocking orders, effectively creating an unchecked censorship regime that bypasses established legal safeguards.
Background of the Legal Challenge
X Corp’s petition asserts that Section 69A of the IT Act, along with the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, is the sole statutory mechanism for blocking public access to digital content in India. This section mandates a structured review process before any blocking decisions are made, ensuring due process and accountability. However, the company alleges that the government is circumventing these procedures by invoking Section 79(3)(b), which does not provide the same level of procedural safeguards.
Specifically, X Corp argues that Section 79(3)(b) is being misinterpreted to grant the government independent authority to block content without adhering to the due process outlined in Section 69A. This, according to the company, leads to arbitrary censorship without proper oversight.
Previous Legal Actions and Context
This is not the first time X Corp has challenged India’s online censorship framework. In 2022, when the company was still operating under the Twitter brand, it contested content-blocking orders issued under Section 69A of the IT Act, alleging disproportionate use of power by authorities. However, in 2023, the court dismissed its plea, stating that the company had approached the court without first complying with the government orders.
Government’s Position and Legal Implications
The Indian government maintains that its actions are in line with the IT Act’s provisions, asserting that Section 79(3)(b) allows for the removal of content that is unlawful or violates the terms of service of intermediaries. Failure to comply with such orders within 36 hours can result in the loss of safe harbor protection under Section 79(1), exposing platforms to legal liabilities under various laws, including the Indian Penal Code.
The outcome of this legal battle could have far-reaching implications for the regulation of digital content in India. A ruling in favor of X Corp may prompt a reevaluation of the current content regulation framework, potentially leading to more stringent checks and balances on governmental powers concerning online censorship. Conversely, a decision upholding the government’s interpretation could reinforce existing mechanisms, granting authorities broader discretion in content regulation.
X Corp’s legal challenge underscores the ongoing debate over the balance between governmental authority and digital freedom in India. As the case proceeds, it will be closely watched by stakeholders worldwide, given its potential to influence the future landscape of internet governance and freedom of expression in one of the world’s largest digital markets.
