X takes Indian govt to court, alleges arbitrary censorship of content

The petition, filed under Article 226, alleged that the Union government circumvents safeguards under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act)

US billionaire Elon Musk-owned X (formerly Twitter) has moved the Karnataka High Court (HC) against the Government of India, claiming unlawful content regulation and arbitrary censorship. In its petition, the social media giant told the HC that the Centre’s interpretation of the Information Technology (IT) Act, particularly its use of Section 79(3)(b), violates a landmark Supreme Court (SC) ruling and undermines free expression online.

 

The petition, filed under Article 226, alleged that the Union government circumvents the safeguards under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, and the protections recognised for internet intermediaries by the apex court in the Shreya Singhal versus Union of India case.

 

 

“Petitioner X Corp (X) files this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge respondents’ (Centre and others) circumvention of Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, and the protections recognised by the SC in Shreya Singhal versus Union of India,” the plea said.

 

X also sought a declaration from the court that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act does not authorise the government to issue information-blocking orders.

 

“That power is governed by Section 69A of the IT Act, read with the IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (also known as Blocking Rules), the sole statutory provision for information blocking as held in Shreya Singhal,” it told the court.

 

Sahyog Portal

 

The introduction of the Sahyog Portal, an online system managed by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), enables state police and various government departments to issue takedown requests directly, bypassing due process under Section 69A. This creates a parallel framework for content censorship, allowing thousands of officials to order content removals without transparency or oversight, X said in its plea.

 

“During a meeting with X on December 17, 2024, the MHA stated that it has only been acting on the instructions of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to create the censorship portal,” the plea said.

 

X argued that the ‘censorship portal’ is in contravention of the law.

 

“Neither Section 79 of the IT Act nor any statute authorises the creation of the censorship portal or requires that X join it,” it said.

 

The company has also challenged the requirement to appoint a ‘nodal officer’ to facilitate compliance with directives issued through the portal, arguing that such a mandate lacks statutory legitimacy.

 

Relief sought

 

In its petition, X has also asked the court to declare that Section 79(3)(b) does not grant the government authority to issue blocking orders. It has also sought to invalidate all content takedown orders issued under Section 79(3)(b), restrict the enforcement of orders from the Sahyog Portal until a final decision is reached, and reaffirm Section 69A as the sole statutory mechanism for online content blocking.

 

Court hearing

 

In an earlier hearing, the Centre argued that no action had been taken against X for not joining the Sahyog Portal. The court had also granted X the liberty to move the court if the government took any preemptive action against it regarding the matter.

 

The case will be heard again on March 27. In 2022, in another petition, X challenged takedown orders issued under Section 69A, arguing that the government’s directives lacked transparency and violated free speech protections.