X Corp (formerly Twitter Inc) has moved the Karnataka High Court, challenging the Government of India’s use of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) to moderate and order the removal of content on social media.
Key Arguments by X Corp:
- Against Sahyog Portal – Calls it a “censorship portal” that allows blocking orders from all government agencies, even local police.
- Claims Section 69A should be the only provision for blocking content, as it has procedural safeguards outlined by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015).
- Challenges the October 31, 2023, order by MeitY authorizing all Ministries, State Governments, and Police Chiefs to issue blocking orders under Section 79(3)(b).
Section 69A vs. Section 79(3)(b) Debate
- Section 69A:
- Allows blocking of content in cases of sovereignty, security, public order, or incitement.
- Has Supreme Court-approved safeguards to prevent misuse (Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India).
- Section 79(3)(b):
- Section 79 meant for intermediaries (like X Corp) to avoid liability for third-party content.
- 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.
- X argues: It does not grant the government the power to issue blocking orders.
- Precedent: Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015)
- SC struck down Section 66A, which criminalized online content causing “annoyance or inconvenience.”
- Reaffirmed that content blocking must follow Section 69A’s safeguards.
(Source: The Hindu and Indian Express)
