Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) has filed a lawsuit against the Indian government, alleging misuse of the Information Technology Act concerning content blocking. The lawsuit challenges the interpretation of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT rules, claiming it leads to arbitrary censorship and violates Supreme Court rulings.
X argues that Section 79(3)(b) forces platforms to preemptively determine what content is illegal, exposing them to legal challenges and potential backlash. This contrasts with Section 69A, which provides a clearer legal basis for content removal based on specific government orders related to national security, public order, or sovereignty. X contends that Section 79(3)(b) creates a parallel, less transparent content blocking mechanism, bypassing the structured legal process outlined in Section 69A.
The company’s preferred method is utilizing Section 69A as a defense. This approach shifts responsibility to the government, protecting platforms from legal risks and accusations of bias while ensuring compliance with official directives. Essentially, X believes it should only be held accountable for removing content when explicitly directed to do so by the government, rather than acting as a judge of illegality.
The Legal Battle: X vs. The Indian Government
X’s lawsuit cites a 2015 Supreme Court ruling in the *Shreya Singhal* case, which established that content can only be blocked through a proper judicial process or legally established channels as defined under Section 69A. The current government approach, X argues, directly contradicts this precedent.
Furthermore, the lawsuit highlights the impracticality of monitoring billions of daily posts, a technically challenging task that places an unreasonable burden on platforms. The company also alleges that the government’s approach undermines principles of free speech and due process.
The Sahyog Portal: A Contested Mechanism
The lawsuit also targets the government’s Sahyog portal, a system developed by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the Ministry of Home Affairs. This portal facilitates direct coordination between social media companies and law enforcement agencies regarding content removal requests under Section 79(3)(b).
X refuses to assign an employee to the Sahyog portal, characterizing it as a “censorship tool” that pressures companies into removing content without proper judicial review. The company views the portal as another attempt by the government to regulate online discourse without adequate judicial oversight.
Key Arguments of X’s Lawsuit:
This legal battle highlights the complex interplay between online content moderation, government regulation, and freedom of speech in India. The outcome will have significant implications for social media companies operating within the country and the broader discussion surrounding online censorship.
The core of X’s argument lies in the belief that platforms should not be held responsible for determining the legality of content; that responsibility lies solely with the government through established legal channels. The lawsuit seeks to clarify these responsibilities and establish a more transparent and legally sound process for content removal in India.
