X may lose safe harbour cover on inaction over Rana Ayyub posts: Centre

Centre tells Delhi High Court that X may lose safe harbour protection for failing to act on Rana Ayyub posts, citing non-compliance with IT Rules and due diligence norms

The Centre and the Delhi Police informed the Delhi High Court on Friday that social media platform X (formerly Twitter) risks losing its safe harbour protection in India for failing to act on allegedly objectionable posts by journalist Rana Ayyub concerning Hindu deities and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.

 

In a note placed before Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, the police said notices had been issued to X in September and December 2025 seeking the removal of the posts. The Centre added that a trial court had, in January 2025, directed registration of an FIR against Ayyub over the same content.

 

According to the government, these police communications and the trial court’s direction amount to “actual knowledge” under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, thereby triggering X’s obligation to act swiftly against unlawful content.

 

 

In the note, the central government argued that the platform’s failure to respond despite such knowledge exposes it to loss of immunity under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act.

 

“It is apposite to note that such inaction amounts to non-compliance with the due diligence requirements provided for in the applicable Rules and facilitates continued commission of unlawful acts by its user, i.e. Rana Ayyub (Respondent No. 04), and a consequence thereof the protection of safe harbour available to the intermediary under Section 79(1) is liable to be withdrawn,” the Centre submitted.

 

Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, provides “safe harbour” protection to intermediaries (social media, ISPs, e-commerce) from liability for third-party content, provided they act as neutral facilitators, follow due diligence, and remove unlawful content upon receiving court orders or government notifications.

 

Earlier, on April 8, the High Court had described Ayyub’s posts as “highly derogatory, inflammatory and communal” and directed both the police and X to take appropriate steps. It stressed the urgency of the matter and called for coordinated action between authorities and the platform.

 

“The action is necessary in view of the highly derogatory, inflammatory and communal tweets posted by Respondent Number 4 [Rana Ayyub] pursuant to which an FIR has been registered on the orders of a competent court. The matter requires urgent consideration. The official who represents Delhi Police is also directed to transmit necessary directions to Respondent Number 3 (X Corp). Let Delhi Police also be impleaded as a party,” the Court had ordered.

 

In response, X contended that the writ petition is not maintainable against it and that any grievance should be pursued against the content creator. It further argued that authorities must follow the blocking mechanism under Section 69A (government’s power to block content, which can be challenged) of the Information Technology Act and the 2009 Blocking Rules, stating that the posts fall within the grounds specified under that provision.

 

Appearing for Ayyub, Advocate Vrinda Grover also challenged the maintainability of the petition. The Court granted Ayyub two weeks to file her reply, including on this issue, and listed the matter for hearing on May 19. Meanwhile, the Delhi Police has been directed to comply with the interim directions and forward relevant material to X.

 

The proceedings arise from a petition by Advocate Amita Sachdeva, who had earlier approached a trial court seeking criminal action. Acting on her complaint, the court ordered registration of an FIR and an investigation. Police later informed the High Court that the posts in question were no longer available on X. However, Sachdeva has alleged that the content insulted Hindu deities, including Ram and Sita, as well as Savarkar, and promoted “anti-India” sentiment.

 

“That upon reading the contents of the tweets, the petitioner, being a follower of Sanatan Dharma, was deeply hurt and aggrieved as the posts prima facie contain insults against Hindu deities, revered historical figures, and are capable of promoting communal disharmony,” she stated.

 

Her petition refers to six posts made between 2013 and 2017, including remarks on religious figures and commentary on Savarkar, as well as a post criticising the Indian Army.