X and Its Ongoing Controversies
X, formerly known as Twitter, has been at the center of multiple disputes with governments worldwide over content moderation, free speech, and regulatory compliance. Since Elon Musk’s acquisition, the platform has positioned itself as a champion of free expression, often challenging government-imposed content restrictions. In India, X has now taken legal action against the government, alleging misuse of the Information Technology (IT) Act to arbitrarily block online content. This lawsuit raises significant questions about digital freedom, government overreach, and the future of content regulation in India.
X Challenges the Indian Government’s Use of the IT Act
X has filed a petition in the Karnataka High Court, contesting the Indian government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. The platform argues that this section does not grant the government unilateral powers to block content, and claims authorities are bypassing Section 69A—a provision that allows content blocking but includes specific legal safeguards and a review process. The Supreme Court had previously upheld these safeguards in the landmark 2015 Shreya Singhal judgment.
The lawsuit highlights concerns that the government’s approach lacks transparency and due process. According to X, the unrestricted use of Section 79(3)(b) could lead to widespread censorship, harming both user trust and the company’s business in India.
Government’s Justification: Enforcing Compliance Under the IT Act
The Indian government, however, defends its actions by citing its legal framework. The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting states that Section 79(3)(b) obligates digital platforms to remove unlawful content upon notification by a government authority or court. If a platform fails to comply within 36 hours, it loses safe harbour protection under Section 79(1), making it legally liable for the content it hosts.
Additionally, the government asserts that Section 69A remains the primary legal provision for content blocking, but Section 79(3)(b) serves as an additional mechanism to enforce compliance when immediate action is necessary. The government has also argued that these regulations help maintain public order and national security, particularly amid rising digital misinformation.
Sahyog Portal: A New Point of Contention
A major aspect of X’s challenge is the government’s push for digital platforms to participate in Sahyog, a portal managed by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C). This system is designed to streamline content blocking orders issued under Section 79(3)(b).
X has strongly opposed joining Sahyog, referring to it as a “Censorship Portal” with no clear legal basis. The company claims that the government is attempting to establish a parallel system for content regulation, circumventing existing legal frameworks. X has also resisted the demand to appoint dedicated officers for this portal, arguing that it already complies with the 2021 IT Guidelines, which require platforms to have grievance and compliance officers.
Legal Proceedings and Potential Implications
During a hearing on March 17, Justice M Naga Prasanna advised X to return to court if the government takes punitive action against the company for non-compliance. As of now, the government has not imposed penalties on X for refusing to join the Sahyog portal.
X’s legal petition also accuses the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) of encouraging other government agencies, including state governments and police departments, to issue independent content-blocking orders. As evidence, X presented blocking requests from the Indian Railways Ministry, which had issued such directives in February 2024.
The Road Ahead for Free Speech and Digital Regulation
The outcome of this legal battle could have far-reaching consequences for digital platforms operating in India. If X succeeds, it could set a precedent limiting government intervention in online content moderation, reinforcing due process and transparency in content blocking. However, if the government prevails, it could strengthen its regulatory grip on social media, potentially leading to more aggressive content censorship in the future.
Beyond X, this case raises broader questions about the balance between free speech, platform accountability, and national security in the digital age. With global tech companies increasingly challenging government regulations, India’s handling of this dispute will be closely watched worldwide. As the legal proceedings unfold, the case will serve as a critical test of India’s commitment to digital rights and freedom of expression in an era of evolving internet governance.
(With inputs from agencies)
