Files Lawsuit Against Indian Government Over Content Censorship
Etawah Today News Desk | March 18, 2025
Billionaire Elon Musk’s social media platform X (formerly Twitter) has filed a legal challenge against the Indian government over the use of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000. The company argues that this provision is being misused to create a “parallel and unlawful” content censorship system, bypassing established legal safeguards.
X Seeks Protection for Employees and Challenges Sahyog Portal
In its petition filed in the Karnataka High Court on March 17, X also sought protection for its employees against coercive actions for not complying with the Sahyog portal, a Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) platform that the company has termed a “Censorship Portal.”
The lawsuit claims that multiple government agencies have begun issuing content takedown orders under Section 79(3)(b), circumventing the legal protections provided under Section 69A of the IT Act. X argues that such actions violate the 2015 Supreme Court ruling in the Shreya Singhal case, which states that content can only be censored through a court order or under Section 69A.
Legal and Government Responses
The Indian government has countered X’s claims in court, stating that it has not taken any punitive actions against the company for not joining the Sahyog portal. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has yet to respond to media requests for comment.
This marks the second legal battle between X and the Indian government over online censorship. In 2022, when the platform was still called Twitter, it challenged content blocking orders issued under Section 69A, arguing that officials were exercising disproportionate power. However, in 2023, the court dismissed Twitter’s plea, citing non-compliance with government directives.
Concerns Over Safe Harbour Protections
Under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, social media intermediaries like X can lose their safe harbour protection if they fail to remove content flagged by an “appropriate” government agency. Safe harbour provisions are crucial for social media platforms as they grant legal immunity for hosting user-generated content.
X claims that MeitY has authorized multiple ministries, state governments, and local police departments to issue blocking orders under Section 79(3)(b) without following the due process outlined in Section 69A. The plea further reveals that MeitY has provided a “Template Blocking Order” to facilitate this process across agencies.
Allegations of Parallel Censorship Mechanism
X’s lawsuit also accuses MeitY of “indirectly using other agencies” to issue content blocking orders that it cannot enforce directly under Section 69A. The company alleges that the Ministry of Home Affairs has established a new online “Censorship Portal” (Sahyog), where various government agencies and police officials can issue content blocking orders under Section 79(3)(b)—without adhering to the legal safeguards mandated by Section 69A.
X argues that the Sahyog portal creates an unconstitutional censorship system, violating the IT Act, Blocking Rules, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Shreya Singhal case. The company also opposes the Home Ministry’s directive requiring it to appoint a “nodal officer” for ensuring compliance, calling it impermissible under Indian law.
Implications for Digital Freedom in India
This lawsuit has reignited debates over freedom of expression and the future of online content regulation in India. Critics argue that the alleged misuse of Section 79(3)(b) could undermine digital rights by enabling excessive government control over online platforms.
Legal experts suggest that the case’s outcome could set a precedent for social media regulations in India, impacting other platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube.
As the case progresses in the Karnataka High Court, all eyes remain on whether the judiciary will uphold digital freedom or validate the government’s expanding role in online content regulation.
