New Delhi: The government is being sued by Elon Musk’s social media company X for allegedly abusing the Information Technology (IT) Act to censor content.
Concerns regarding arbitrary censorship and the interpretation of the IT Act’s provisions, specifically Section 79(3)(b), are brought up in this case, which was filed in the Karnataka High Court.
The lawsuit alleges that the government is bypassing the structured legal process outlined in Section 69A to enforce content takedown requests.
Legal Challenge
The social media platform X contends that the government’s interpretation of Section 79(3)(b) creates a parallel content-blocking mechanism that is unconstitutional.
The clause that mandates that platforms delete content that is considered unlawful is criticised for being too ambiguous, putting social media corporations at risk of legal action or public outrage by requiring them to make arbitrary decisions about what is permissible.
The lawsuit highlights that Section 69A explicitly provides the government with the power to order content removal on grounds of national security, public order, or sovereignty concerns. Unlike Section 79(3)(b), it follows a structured process with procedural safeguards.
According to X, the government’s current strategy conflicts with the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in the Shreya Singhal case, which stipulated that content could only be blocked via Section 69A or a proper legal procedure.
X has also raised concerns over the government’s Sahyog portal, which was developed by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
The portal is designed to facilitate direct coordination between social media platforms and law enforcement agencies for content takedown requests under Section 79(3)(b).
The social media company, headquartered in the US, has refused to assign an employee to this platform, alleging that it functions as a “censorship tool” that bypasses judicial oversight.
The complaint comes as X’s AI model Grok has come under scrutiny for making divisive comments about public personalities and political parties, sparking debates about content control. Additionally, reports suggested that the government is considering whether X and its AI model have violated the IT Intermediary Rules, 2021.
Legal Experts Weigh In
Legal professionals believe the outcome of this case will set an important precedent for digital governance and online speech regulation in India.
Ekta Rai, Advocate, Delhi High Court, remarked:
“The case filed by X against the Indian government is more than just a challenge to content takedown orders—it raises fundamental questions about digital rights, regulatory overreach and the balance between free speech and state control. At the heart of the dispute is the alleged misuse of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and the Sahyog portal, which X argues bypasses the procedural safeguards established under Section 69A.”
She further added, “The Karnataka High Court’s decision will set a critical precedent—if X prevails, it could impose stricter checks on arbitrary censorship and force greater transparency in content regulation. If the government wins, tech platforms may find themselves under increased pressure to comply with takedown requests, potentially impacting free expression online.”
Ankit Sahni, Partner at Ajay Sahni & Associates, highlighted the potential implications:
“The road ahead will likely involve judicial clarification on the scope of Section 79(3)(b) and its use for content takedowns. If the court rules in favour of X, the government may have to rely solely on Section 69A, which includes procedural safeguards. Alternatively, the government could introduce legislative amendments to formally codify the use of Sahyog or refine the IT Rules to address due process concerns.”
Sahni also noted, “The broader impact of this case extends beyond censorship—it also highlights concerns about the discretionary use of the IT Rules. If these provisions are interpreted too broadly, it could create uncertainty for platforms and weaken the legal framework governing online content. At the same time, the government will need to ensure that regulatory mechanisms remain effective in tackling unlawful content.”
Alay Razvi, Managing Partner at Accord Juris, described the case as a pivotal moment in India’s digital policy framework.
“This lawsuit is a high-stakes battle that will likely shape India’s approach to digital governance, content regulation, and free speech rights for years to come. The Karnataka High Court’s ruling will be crucial in determining the balance between government oversight and platform autonomy, setting a precedent not just for India but potentially influencing global digital governance norms.”
He added, “If the court takes an unfavourable view of the current regulatory framework, the government may be compelled to amend the IT Rules, 2021, especially provisions relating to takedown requests and platform compliance obligations.”
“If the verdict favours X, it would set a precedent where the government will have to limit its interference in content moderation decisions. However, if the ruling supports the government, it may strengthen the state’s ability to enforce content moderation policies, potentially leading to stricter compliance burdens for digital platforms.”
The Road Ahead and Government’s Stance
There is no doubt that the government will defend its regulatory framework by arguing that the IT rules are necessary for national security, public order and combating misinformation. It is likely to maintain that the Sahyog portal facilitates swift action against unlawful content, including hate speech and misinformation.
However, it is understood that if the Karnataka High Court rules against the government, amendments to the IT Rules, 2021, may be required, particularly regarding takedown requests and platform compliance obligations. Additionally, it is possible that an adverse ruling for the government may lead to an appeal to the Supreme Court.
If the court rules in favour of X, it would limit government intervention in content regulation, reinforcing judicial oversight in takedown requests. However, if the government prevails, it could solidify its ability to enforce content moderation policies, increasing compliance obligations for digital platforms.
However, the hearing’s next date has been set for 27 March.
Also read –
