Elon Musk's X sues Union Government over alleged censorship and IT Act violations

X says government is bypassing SC’s safeguards by issuing blocking orders under Section 79 of the IT Act; says Centre is illegally delegating blocking powers to local police through MHA’s Sahyog portal

X Corp, formerly known as Twitter Inc, has moved the Karnataka High Court, challenging the way that Central and State governments are issuing orders to block content on its platform. It is also opposing the Centre’s new Sahyog portal, terming it a ‘censorship portal’, which allows all government agencies — from Union Ministries down to local police stations — to issue blocking orders, using a Central government-issued template.

The Karnataka High Court will hear the petition on March 27.

Explained | The amendments to the IT Rules, 2021

X Corp has asked the court to direct the government that orders to block content can only be issued under Section 69A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, and not by invoking Section 79(3)(b) of the Act. A Central government official told The Hindu that orders issued under Section 79 were not “direct blocking orders”, but simply notified the platform that it was liable for illegal content.

‘Bypassing SC safeguards’

Section 69A empowers the Central government to direct the blocking of public access to information if deemed necessary for sovereignty, security, public order, or to prevent incitement, among other reasons. It has multiple procedural safeguards to ensure it is not misused, which have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the landmark Shreya Singhal vs Union of India case in 2015.

Section 79 of the Act, on the other hand, “merely exempts intermediaries [such as service providers, social media platforms, or apps] from liability for third-party content [such as posts]; it does not empower the government to issue information blocking orders in violation of Section 69A and the apex court’s verdict in Shreya Singhal’s case,” according to the X petition. However, clause 3(b) of Section 79 does say that the exemption will not be valid if the intermediary fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to material used to commit an unlawful act when notified by the government.

‘Censorship portal’

The company also questioned the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) communication issued on October 31, 2023, informing all Central Ministries, all State governments, and all State police chiefs that they are authorised to issue blocking orders under Section 79(3)(b) of the Act. A year later, the Ministry of Home Affairs created the Sahyog portal, which X has called a “censorship portal” to facilitate such orders to be issued. The Sahyog portal website says it was developed “to automate the process of sending notices to intermediaries... ensuring immediate action” and will “help achieve a clean cyber space”.

These actions by the Centre are in violation of the law as laid down by the top court in the Shreya Singhal case, the petition said. “MeitY is trying to do indirectly through other agencies what it cannot do directly under Section 69A... MeitY’s actions are also colourable exercises of power because it has attempted to delegate power to Central and State agencies, and countless local police officers, that MeitY itself does not have under the IT Act,” the petition added.

Editorial | Unwarranted curbs: On the Centre’s move on a ‘fact-checking unit

‘Not blocking orders’

A senior Union government official disputed X’s description of the Sahyog portal as a parallel censorship system. Orders sent under Section 79 “are not blocking orders,” the official said. “These orders inform social media intermediaries about illegal content, and if they do not remove them, they share the liability faced by the users... It is not the same as a blocking order under Section 69A, which is directly blocking on a few narrow grounds.”

“We will let the court decide the constitutionality of the portal,” the official added. Asked why so many police officers around the country were being allowed to send orders under the Sahyog portal, the official said, “India is a large country... We can’t function at the Centre like a police station,” and act on a large number of law and order complaints on social media content.

Prasanth Sugathan, legal director at the Software Freedom Law Centre, India, said that it was “problematic” that Sahyog was designed for such a large number of complaints “without any procedural safeguards”. Even blocking orders under Section 69A are being issued as emergency directions, with no opportunity for users to be heard beforehand, he said.

Interim protection sought

Informing the court that the MHA had written to X Corp in October 2024 asking it to appoint a nodal officer to coordinate with the Sahyog Portal, the company sought interim protection, expressing apprehension that if it fails to appoint a nodal officer or to comply with blocking orders issued under Section 79(3)9b), it may attract coercive action against the company and its representatives.

Twitter, the IT Act, and the blocking saga explained | In Focus Podcast

 / 

When the petition came up for hearing on March 17 before Justice M. Nagaprasanna, the Additional Solicitor General of India told the court that “there is nothing done that would justify grant of an interim order, as on date.” The court then adjourned the hearing till March 27, telling X it was free to move a petition if any action is taken prejudicial to its interest or otherwise.

The company’s earlier petition challenging blocking orders issued under Section 69A of the Act was dismissed by a single judge of the Karnataka High Court in June 2023, imposing costs of ₹50 lakh. The company’s appeal against that judgement is now pending adjudication before a division bench.

X’s legal challenge

Here are the contentions of Elon Musk’s company in the Karnataka High Court:

Why issue blocking orders under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, and not under Section 69A

Section 79(3)(b) outlines the conditions under which an intermediary loses its ‘safe harbour’ protection

Section 69A empowers the government to block access to online content, under specific circumstances

Union Home Ministry’s Sahyog portal is a ‘censorship portal’

Published - March 20, 2025 03:42 pm IST