X, formerly known as Twitter, has filed a petition in the Karnataka High Court, challenging the Indian government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act (IT Act) to enforce content takedowns. The Elon Musk-owned platform argues that the government is misinterpreting this section — originally designed to offer intermediary platforms “safe harbour” protections from liability — and using it to compel content removal without adhering to the proper legal framework. X claims this approach bypasses the more rigorous, legally established content-blocking process outlined in Section 69A of the IT Act, which the Supreme Court upheld in the landmark 2015 Shreya Singhal judgment.
Section 69A specifically allows content to be blocked only under defined circumstances, such as in the interest of national security or public order. It requires a detailed review mechanism and approval from a committee. X contends that Section 79(3)(b), by contrast, contains no such safeguards or clarity, enabling authorities to issue blocking orders without oversight, potentially leading to unchecked and arbitrary censorship. X asserts that this misuse undermines the platform’s ability to operate freely, hurting its business and eroding user trust — particularly since the platform relies on enabling people to share lawful content openly and without fear of sudden, unexplained removal.
A key flashpoint in this dispute is the government’s push for X to integrate with Sahyog, a portal created by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C). The portal is designed to more efficiently centralize and enforce Section 79(3)(b) orders. X has strongly resisted this directive, describing Sahyog as a “Censorship Portal” with no clear legal backing. The company argues that it has already complied with the 2021 IT Guidelines by appointing grievance and compliance officers — a requirement for major social media platforms operating in India. X says the demand to appoint additional officers specifically for the Sahyog portal imposes an unnecessary and legally unfounded burden on the company.
During a hearing on March 17, Justice M Nagaprasanna advised X to return to the court if the government takes punitive action against the platform for refusing to comply with the portal directive. For now, the government maintains that no penalties or sanctions have been imposed on X for its non-participation in Sahyog.
In its petition, X further accused the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) of promoting a decentralized, parallel system of content blocking by encouraging state governments, ministries, and police departments to issue their own takedown orders outside the established legal framework. X supported this claim by presenting examples of blocking orders originating from the Railways Ministry in February 2024 — evidence it says illustrates how various departments are independently circumventing the formal process.
The timing of X’s legal push is particularly notable given that Elon Musk’s other companies are working to expand their presence in India. Tesla is currently navigating regulatory approvals to enter the Indian electric vehicle market, while SpaceX is pursuing partnerships with Jio and Airtel to launch its Starlink satellite internet service in the country. This legal battle could potentially complicate those business ventures if tensions escalate between Musk’s enterprises and the Indian government. The outcome of this case may not only determine X’s ability to continue operating freely in India but could also set a broader precedent for how global tech companies handle government content control efforts in the country’s rapidly evolving digital landscape.
