DigiPub moves Karnataka High Court against Centre's takedown directives

DigiPub News India Foundation challenged the Centre's content takedown directives, telling the Karnataka HC that media houses are vulnerable to subjective decisions made by officers issuing orders

DigiPub News India Foundation opposed the Centre's content takedown directives before the Karnataka High Court on Friday, arguing that 92 media houses are now at the mercy of an officer issuing takedown orders.

 

“A judicial determination of an unlawful act by a duly constituted court of law, on the one hand, and a cyclostyled form with the hands of the officer to fill in a couple of blanks here and there and direct taking down, directly infringes Article 19(1)(a),” Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, appearing for DigiPub, submitted before Justice N Nagprasanna.

 

“Extreme examples do not make the law. 92 media houses, putting out responsible reporting, are at the mercy of an officer issuing a cyclostyled order,” he said.

 

The foundation has moved the high court seeking intervention in X Corp’s plea before the court.

 

"X is a platform or intermediary. X per se does not create content. We do. Takedown orders will affect us directly. The fact that the originator of content has a right, a locus standi, I may say, has been recognised by the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal case," he said.

 

He also stated that Section 79 of the IT Act is an exemption, adding that it begins with the word 'exemption.' Section 79 of the IT Act exempts an intermediary from liability for any information, data, or communication link made by a third party. 

 

However, Section 79(3)(b) provides that upon receiving actual knowledge or being notified by the appropriate government that any information is being used to commit an unlawful act, the intermediary would be liable if it fails to expeditiously remove access to such information.

 

“Media is media. This nuance of offline versus online is well-placed, as has been observed. But that said, this is not an omnibus license for the government to say that online is standalone, we can do what we wish,” Sondhi argued.

 

X Corp (formerly Twitter) had earlier told the Karnataka High Court that central government officers were instructing the platform to block content under Section 79 of the IT Act as per their 'whims and fancies.'

 

Senior Advocate KG Raghavan, appearing for X Corp, had told Justice N Nagprasanna that thousands of officers appointed by the Union across the country, each with their subjective understanding of online content, were making decisions within their respective jurisdictions under Section 79.

 

He further argued that Section 79(3)(b) cannot serve as an independent or standalone source of power to block content, especially in the absence of procedural safeguards embedded in Section 69A. He emphasised that Section 79(3)(b) does not, in itself, confer blocking powers on the executive.

 

Section 69A empowers the government to block access to online information under specific conditions, while Section 79 provides a ‘safe harbour’ for intermediaries, protecting them from liability for third-party content under certain circumstances.

 

Echoing this view, Sondhi argued on Friday, "Safe harbour is not simply an insulation but is recognition of free speech rights. An officer not palatable to his masters or for other reasons sits in his office and says, take down. The absence of a natural justice mechanism in the impugned rules makes it suspect... The absence of all the steps like post-decision hearing, etc., does it allow the rule to pass the muster of Article 14?”

 

The court will now hear arguments from the Centre in the coming week.