X Challenges IT Act’s Interpretation in Karnataka High Court
Elon Musk-owned social media platform X has filed a lawsuit against the Indian government in the Karnataka High Court, alleging unlawful content regulation and arbitrary censorship. The case challenges the government’s interpretation of the Information Technology (IT) Act, particularly the use of Section 79(3)(b), which X argues undermines free expression and contradicts Supreme Court rulings.
Allegations Against the Government’s Content-Blocking Mechanism
According to X, the Indian government is misusing Section 79(3)(b) to create a parallel content-blocking system, bypassing the structured legal process outlined in Section 69A of the IT Act. While Section 69A allows the government to order content removal on grounds of national security, public order, or sovereignty concerns, X claims that Section 79(3)(b) is vague and forces platforms to determine what content is illegal, increasing their exposure to lawsuits and accusations of bias.
Social media platforms often rely on Section 69A for legal clarity, arguing that content should only be removed if the government explicitly orders it. By using Section 79(3)(b), the government allegedly shifts the burden onto platforms, leading to over-censorship.
Violation of Supreme Court’s Shreya Singhal Ruling
X further contends that the government’s approach contradicts the Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 ruling in the Shreya Singhal case. This ruling established that content could only be blocked through proper judicial scrutiny or the legally defined process under Section 69A. X claims that using Section 79(3)(b) sidesteps these safeguards, creating legal uncertainty for social media platforms.
Concerns Over the Sahyog Portal
The lawsuit also challenges the government’s Sahyog portal, an initiative under the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) designed to handle takedown requests under Section 79(3)(b). X alleges that the portal functions as a “censorship tool” that pressures platforms to remove content without proper legal scrutiny. The company has refused to assign an employee to the system, arguing that it enables government control over online discourse without judicial oversight.
With this legal battle, X seeks judicial intervention to ensure content moderation decisions are based on clear legal directives rather than government pressure, reaffirming its stance on protecting free speech.
