X vs. India: Free Speech Battle Over IT Act Violations
- International Affairs North America South Asia
Shreya Naskar- 0
- 6 minutes read
Elon Musk’s social media platform, X (formerly Twitter), has filed a lawsuit against the Indian government in the Karnataka High Court, challenging what it describes as unlawful content regulation and arbitrary censorship imposed by Indian authorities. The legal dispute underscores growing tensions between international tech companies and the Indian government over digital content regulation, free speech, and government overreach. This lawsuit marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over freedom of expression on digital platforms versus state control over online content. X’s lawsuit primarily targets two main aspects of Indian law and government actions:
1. Section 79(3)(b) vs. Section 69A of the IT Act
X has accused the Indian government of bypassing established legal procedures by misusing Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act instead of the more structured Section 69A.
Meaning of these section: Section 69A of the IT Act: Provides a structured framework for content blocking. Includes oversight mechanisms and a review process to ensure that takedown requests follow legal guidelines. Ensures judicial or administrative scrutiny before content is blocked.
Paragraph 79(3)(b) of the IT Act: Allows the government to restrict online content if it is deemed illegal or harmful. However, X argues that this section lacks proper procedural safeguards and is being used to bypass the due process requirements outlined in Section 69A. According to X, the Indian government is exploiting Section 79(3)(b) to order content takedowns arbitrarily, without following legal oversight as mandated under Section 69A. This raises concerns about digital censorship and the lack of transparency in government-mandated content removal.
2. The Sahyog Portal and Government Overreach
Another major concern raised in X’s lawsuit is the use of the Sahyog Portal, a digital platform developed by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the Ministry of Home Affairs. Sahyog Portal: The Sahyog Portal allows state police and government departments to send direct takedown requests to social media platforms like X, Facebook, and YouTube. It bypasses traditional legal oversight, enabling authorities to demand content removal without due process.
X’s Arguments Against the Sahyog Portal
X claims that this system creates a “parallel censorship mechanism”, where officials can silence content without legal accountability. The company argues that this violates India’s constitutional rights and goes against the Supreme Court’s ruling in the 2015 Shreya Singhal v. Union of India case. In the Shreya Singhal case, the Supreme Court ruled that content takedowns must follow due legal process, and only courts or designated government agencies can order such actions. By allowing government departments to bypass legal procedures, X alleges that the Sahyog Portal is being used as a tool for political censorship, suppressing dissenting voices, and curbing free speech.
As of now, the Indian government has not officially commented on the lawsuit. However, previous statements from authorities suggest that they see content regulation as a necessary tool for national security and public order. Possible Scenarios
- If X Wins the Case:
- The Indian government may be forced to reconsider its approach to online content regulation.
- Other tech companies may follow X’s lead in challenging censorship policies.
- The Sahyog Portal might face legal restrictions or be shut down altogether.
- If X Loses the Case:
- The Indian government will gain more power to regulate online platforms without judicial oversight.
- Social media platforms could face stricter compliance demands, leading to more censorship.
- X may struggle to operate freely in India and could face legal penalties or suspension threats.