Govt bypassing safeguards under law to order content takedown: X tells HC

Time of India

11-07-2025

Microblogging platform X Corp said on Friday that the Indian government is using a 'smart and ingenious workaround' to avoid the legal safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in a 2015 order with respect to take down of content or blocking of social media handles.Why would the Indian government follow the lengthy and complicated procedure of safeguards provided under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act when an easy path via Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules and the Sahyog Portal is available to issue content takedown notices, the company asked the Karnataka High Court.Elon Musk-owned X, formerly Twitter, has petitioned the high court challenging the way the government issues orders to take down content.The union home ministry had developed the Sahyog portal to automate the process of sending notices to intermediaries.Senior counsel KG Raghavan, appearing for X, said Rule 3(1)(d) effectively seeks to undo the apex court ruling in the 2015 Shreya Singhal case and must be struck down, because it undermines the safeguards provided in Section 69A of the IT Act.Under Section 69A, content can be blocked only in the interest of sovereignty, security, public order, or similar grounds listed in Article 19(2) that deals with the fundamental right to freedom of speech expression. The process requires an inter-ministerial committee to review the request and provides affected parties an opportunity to be heard (except in emergencies), and records written reasons for the blocking order.Raghavan noted that both Section 69A and Section 79 are administered by the ministry of electronics and information technology (MeitY), but only Section 69A includes procedural safeguards like an inter-ministerial committee, written orders and judicial review.Instead of following that, he said, MeitY has chosen the easy path, using Rule 3(1)(d) to issue notices without statutory backing.He also questioned the legal validity of the Sahyog Portal. According to Raghavan, there is no notification or statutory provision authorising the portal's creation, yet intermediaries are being told to onboard via letters from government agencies.The next hearing is on July 17 when the government will present its case.Media industry body Digipub, which represents 92 digital-first publishers and journalists, also made submissions supporting X's petition.Digipub argued that the distinction between online and offline media cannot be used as a blanket justification to sidestep safeguards.According to it, the government has turned Section 79 (3)(b) of the IT Act, an exemption provision, into an empowerment provision, which neither the language of the Act nor the Rules support.'The creation of such a regime is, in itself, arbitrary,' Digipub submitted.