X sues Indian govt over arbitrary censorship: What is the case all about?

US billionaire Elon Musk-owned X (formerly Twitter) has moved a plea in the Karnataka High Court against the Indian government, alleging unlawful content regulation and arbitrary censorship. In its plea, the social media giant has argued that the Centre's interpretation of the Information Technology (IT) Act—particularly its use of Section 79(3)(b)—violates the landmark Supreme Court ruling in the Shreya Singhal case and undermines free expression online.

 

What is the Shreya Singhal case?

 

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the Shreya Singhal case laid down key safeguards against government censorship and clarified the liability of online platforms. The ruling struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalised sending "offensive" messages via computers or communication devices, but upheld Sections 79(3)(b) and 69A with safeguards to prevent misuse of the safe harbour provisions.

 

 

The court ruled that under Section 79(3)(b), online intermediaries cannot be held liable for user-generated content unless they fail to act on a court order or a government directive. A mere request or complaint is not enough to mandate content removal, the judgment clarified, ensuring that takedown decisions follow legal scrutiny.

 

At the same time, the court upheld Section 69A, which allows the government to block content on grounds like national security and public order. However, it stressed that blocking orders must be reasoned, follow due process, and be open to judicial review—preventing arbitrary censorship.

 

The key difference is that while Section 79(3)(b) protects intermediaries from liability unless a court or the government directs a takedown, it ensures a transparent process. In contrast, Section 69A gives the government the power to block content directly, but with procedural safeguards.

 

“One requires compliance by intermediaries; the other is direct government action,” said Aslam Ahmed, partner at law firm Singhania & Co.

 

Both provisions regulate online content but operate differently. Section 79(3)(b) ensures judicial oversight, requiring legal orders for takedown, while Section 69A allows direct government intervention, though orders can be challenged in court.

 

“Transparency is a key concern—while takedowns under Section 79(3)(b) are clearer, blocking under 69A is often secretive, raising accountability questions,” Ahmed added.

 

The road ahead will likely involve judicial clarification on the scope of Section 79(3)(b) and its use for content takedowns, said Ankit Sahni, partner at law firm Ajay Sahni and Associates.

 

“If the court rules in favour of X Corp, the government may have to rely solely on Section 69A, which includes procedural safeguards. Alternatively, the government could introduce legislative amendments to formally codify the use of Sahyog or refine the IT Rules to address due process concerns,” he said.

 

This lawsuit is a high-stakes battle that will likely shape India’s approach to digital governance, content regulation, and free speech rights for years to come, said Alay Razvi, managing partner at law firm Accord Juris.