Govt officials acting on 'whims and fancies', X tells Karnataka HC

X Corp argues before the Karnataka High Court that arbitrary content blocking under Section 79 of the IT Act by government officers violates constitutional safeguards

X Corp (formerly Twitter) on Tuesday told the Karnataka High Court that central government officers were directing 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, 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.

 

This results in arbitrary and inconsistent content regulation, he argued.

 

"Unlike Section 69A, which requires decision-making through a committee process, Section 79 allows a single officer to issue takedown directions without any institutional safeguards. This is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution... Across the country, thousands of officers, each with their subjective understanding of what is lawful or moral, are making such decisions as per their own whims and fancies. There is no coordination or uniformity among these government officers, and that amounts to arbitrariness," he told the court.

 

 

Raghavan 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 that are embedded in Section 69A. He further emphasized that Section 79(3)(b) does not, in itself, confer blocking powers on the executive. 

 

Referring to Section 69A of the IT Act, Raghavan said it provided a structured regime that requires satisfaction of necessity on limited grounds (such as sovereignty, public order, security of state, etc.), mandates reasons to be recorded in writing, and ensures procedural checks and balances, which is absent in Section 79(3)(b), where an officer or agency takes the decisions.

 

While the platform has "no intention to injure public interest," Section 79(3)(b) could not be read in isolation as a standalone power to bypass these safeguards under Section 69A, Raghavan told the court.

 

"Can a blocking order be passed from the confines of a government officer's room? The answer is no… It becomes a case of 'I say so, therefore it is so.' The officer's decision is treated as final, and if I don't obey, I lose my protection (safe harbour) under Section 79(1) IT Act," he said.

 

Raghavan also told the court that the Union Government consistently argues that Section 79(3)(b) is distinct from Section 69A and not subject to its procedural discipline. This effectively enables the executive to issue content-blocking directions without any statutory or judicial oversight, which is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, he said.

 

The benefits of the observations made by the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal judgment for testing the validity of a law and on Sections 69A and 79, and the procedural safeguards must be ensured for X Corp, he said.

 

Opposing X's plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the arguments made by X Corp's counsel have been advanced from "an X-centric perspective." He said that the Union Government must look at the issue from the standpoint of an intermediary.

 

"Suppose a defamatory post is published against me. The government informs the intermediary that the content is defamatory and asks for its removal under Rule 3(1)(d). If the content is not taken down, and I approach the court, Twitter can claim (before the Court) that it is merely a platform and cannot be held liable. But compare this with a press owner, say, the Times of India. I say that Twitter, or any intermediary, enjoys a special exemption under Section 79(1) of the IT Act. The nature of the medium matters," he said. 

 

The court then listed the hearing for July 11, with the Union’s arguments set to be heard on July 17. The high court is hearing X's plea against the Centre, claiming unlawful content regulation and arbitrary action through the Sahyog Portal.

 

Union’s Opposition:

 

The Centre, in its affidavit before the high court, vehemently denied that ministries were issuing notifications at the behest of MeitY. It explained that many government departments/ministries have a National Informatics Centre (NIC) office or officer deputed only for ease of functioning related to IT infrastructure, which is managed by NIC at the national level. This does not mean that NIC is directing the functioning of all ministries, departments, and courts, the Centre said.

 

The lifting of safe harbour could in no way be equated to the blocking of information, the central government added. X's reliance on the Kunal Kamra case was also misplaced because Article 19 pertains to the rights of users of intermediary platforms, not the intermediary itself, the Centre argued.