X takes Indian Government to court over alleged online censorship

Social media platform X (formerly Twitter) has filed a lawsuit in the Karnataka High Court against the Indian government, challenging its content regulation practices. The company alleges that authorities are imposing censorship without following legally mandated procedures under India’s Information Technology (IT) Act.

The company has contested the government’s interpretation of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, arguing that it is being misused to create an independent system for content blocking. The company claims this contradicts the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in the Shreya Singhal case, which established that content can only be blocked through judicial processes or under Section 69A of the IT Act.

The Indian Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has defended its stance, stating that Section 79(3)(b) requires online platforms to remove illegal content when directed by a court order or government notification. Non-compliance within 36 hours, it argues, could result in platforms losing their safe harbor protection under Section 79(1) and facing legal consequences under various laws, including the Indian Penal Code.

A central issue in the lawsuit is the company's opposition to the Sahyog Portal, a government-run system under the Ministry of Home Affairs that facilitates takedown requests. The company has refused to integrate with the portal, claiming it acts as a censorship tool by allowing authorities to demand content removals without due legal review.

According to the company, the government has used Section 79(3)(b) as a shortcut to bypass the structured review process outlined in Section 69A. The company argues that blocking orders should only be issued under the legally prescribed mechanism, which includes safeguards against arbitrary censorship.

The company formally moved the Karnataka High Court to challenge the Sahyog Portal and the broader application of Section 79(3)(b). The petition follows multiple takedown orders issued by the Ministry of Railways after posts about a reported stampede at New Delhi Railway Station.

The case was first heard by Justice M. Nagaprasanna on March 17 and is scheduled for a detailed hearing on March 27.

Key allegations

The lawsuit presents several allegations, including:

• Misuse of Section 79(3)(b): The company claims this provision, originally meant to protect platforms from liability, is being misapplied to create an unauthorised content-blocking mechanism.
• Bypassing Section 69A: The company asserts that only Section 69A grants the government authority to block online content and that this process must adhere to Supreme Court rulings.
• MeitY’s Role: It alleges that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has instructed central and state agencies to issue blocking orders under Section 79(3)(b) instead of following the Section 69A framework.
• Template Blocking Orders: The company claims that MeitY has provided agencies with standardised blocking order templates, which it argues violate legal safeguards.
• Challenging the Sahyog Portal: it contends that the Sahyog Portal establishes a parallel system of content regulation, circumventing legal scrutiny.

Relief sought

In its petition, the company has requested the Karnataka High Court to:

• Declare that Section 79(3)(b) does not permit the government to issue content-blocking orders, which should only be regulated under Section 69A.
• Quash the blocking orders issued outside the Section 69A framework and prevent any punitive action against the platform.
• Grant interim relief to prevent the government from taking coercive action against the company for not complying with takedown requests outside the legally prescribed process.
• Restrict authorities from mandating the company's participation in the Sahyog Portal, which the company argues facilitates government overreach.

The legal challenge highlights ongoing tensions between digital platforms and government authorities over online content regulation in India. The Karnataka High Court’s decision could have significant implications for the future of content moderation and platform accountability in the country.