Manas Dasgupta
NEW DELHI, Mar 20: The US billionaire Elon Musk owned Social media giant ‘X’ (formerly Twitter) on Thursday filed a lawsuit in the Karnataka High Court against the Government of India, challenging “unlawful content regulation and arbitrary censorship.”
It raised concerns over the Centre’s interpretation of the Information Technology (IT) Act, particularly its use of Section 79(3)(b), which ‘X’ argues violated Supreme Court rulings and undermines free expression online. The lawsuit alleged the government was using the said section to create a parallel content-blocking mechanism, bypassing the structured legal process outlined in Section 69A.
‘X’ claimed this approach contradicts the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in the Shreya Singhal case, which struck down Section 66A of the Indian Information Technology Act that criminalised sending offensive messages on communication devices and established that content can only be blocked through a proper judicial process or the legally defined route under Section 69A.
According to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B), Section 79(3)(b) mandates online platforms to remove illegal content when directed by either a court order or a government notification. If a platform fails to comply within 36 hours, it risks losing its safe harbour protection under Section 79(1) and could be held accountable under various laws, including the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
However, X has contested this interpretation, arguing that the provision does not grant the government independent authority to block content. Instead, it accused authorities of misusing the law to impose arbitrary censorship without following due process.
Under Section 69A of the IT Act, the government has the power to block public access to digital content if it is deemed a threat to national security, sovereignty, or public order. However, this process is regulated by the 2009 Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, which require a structured review process before blocking decisions are made.
‘X’ has argued that instead of following these procedures, the government was using Section 79(3)(b) as a shortcut, allowing content to be removed without the necessary scrutiny. The platform sees this as a direct violation of legal safeguards meant to prevent arbitrary censorship.
Another major point in the social media platform’s legal challenge is its opposition to the government’s Sahyog portal. Created by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the Ministry of Home Affairs, this platform was designed to streamline takedown requests under Section 79(3)(b) and facilitate direct communication between social media platforms and law enforcement agencies.
However, ‘X’ has refused to onboard an employee onto the Sahyog portal, claiming it acts as a “censorship tool” that pressures platforms to remove content without proper legal review. The lawsuit argues that this is yet another attempt by the government to control online discourse without judicial oversight.
The government has sharply reacted to the lawsuit stating that it would follow the due process and the social media platforms must follow the law. The X’s petition said the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has told central ministries and state governments and “effectively tens of thousands of local police officers” that they are authorised to issue information blocking orders under Section 79(3)(b), outside the Section 69A process. Section 79(3)(b) lays down that an IT intermediary loses its immunity from liability if it did not “expeditiously remove or disable access” to material flagged by a government agency as linked to an unlawful act.
X’s petition says that the use of Section 79(3)(b) circumvents Section 69A, which empowers the government to issue directions to block public access to information but lays down safeguards.
“Section 79 merely exempts intermediaries from liability for third-party content; it does not empower the government to issue information blocking orders in violation of Section 69A. A full 23 years after Section 79 was enacted, and 14 years after the current version went into effect, Respondents are now attempting to misuse Section 79 to create an unlawful blocking regime without any of the protections that exist under Section 69A, the Blocking Rules, and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal,” the petition says.
In its petition, X said the Centre was “attempting to bypass the multiple procedural safeguards in the Blocking Rules and the specified grounds of Section 69A” and that it violates the Supreme Court order.
It has said the Centre and the other respondents have lawful avenues to block information in an emergency. “Any government agency can use the Section 69A process by sending a request to the Designated Officer under Section 69A. Under Rules 4 to 6 of the Blocking Rules, central and state agencies have nodal officers who send blocking requests to the Designated Officer. Any person can approach a nodal officer, who forwards the request for blocking to the Designated Officer,” it said.
X has said the Centre’s actions threaten its business model that rests on people sharing lawful information. “The X platform derives value and revenue from its user base and the lawful content they generate. Thus, unlawful or unjustified information blocking orders cause harm to X and its ability to operate. Respondents’ ultra vires actions of issuing information blocking orders, without following due process of law, aggrieve X by violating X’s Article 14 rights and detrimentally impacting its business.”
The government’s counter, according to sources, is that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act empowers it to notify intermediaries like X to remove unlawful content quickly and effectively. The sources added that Section 79(3)(b) is not dependent on Section 69A’s blocking process.
