X’s Legal Battle Over IT Act Censorship

Context:

This analysis details X Corp’s petition in the Karnataka High Court challenging the Indian government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) for content blocking, arguing it bypasses safeguards under Section 69A. The case, spotlighting digital rights and governance, is set against X’s broader tensions with India’s regulatory framework as of March 22, 2025.

Crisp Information in Points:

1. X’s Petition: On March 17, 2025, X challenged the government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) in the Karnataka High Court, claiming it establishes an unlawful, parallel content-blocking regime sidestepping Section 69A’s protections.
2. Section 79(3)(b) Issue: This provision strips intermediaries like X of "safe harbour" immunity if they fail to remove unlawful content upon government notice, lacking the judicial oversight or procedural rigor of Section 69A.
3. Section 69A Safeguards: Allows content blocking for national security or public order, mandating a review process and written reasons, aligned with Article 19(2) constitutional limits on free speech.
4. Shreya Singhal Ruling: The 2015 Supreme Court decision (Shreya Singhal v. Union of India) invalidated Section 66A and ruled Section 79(3)(b) requires a court order or government notice tied to Article 19(2) grounds, not arbitrary use.
5. Government’s Directive: A 2023 MeitY order expanded Section 79(3)(b) use, allowing ministries, states, and police to issue blocking orders, which X alleges violates Shreya Singhal safeguards.
6. Sahyog Portal: Launched October 2024, this MeitY portal enables authorities to issue Section 79(3)(b) orders; X labels it a “censorship portal” and seeks protection from coercion to join it.
7. Court Response: Justice M. Nagaprasanna denied an interim order on March 17 but permitted X to return if coerced; the case is scheduled for March 27, 2025.
8. Grok Controversy: X’s AI chatbot Grok 3’s critical responses and Hindi slang use have drawn government attention, raising unresolved questions about intermediary liability for AI content under Section 79.
9. Free Speech Concerns: X argues this misuse threatens Article 19(1)(a) rights, chilling online expression and disrupting its business model reliant on lawful content sharing.
10. Prior Clash: In 2022, X challenged Section 69A orders, losing in 2023 with a ₹50 lakh fine, underscoring ongoing friction with India’s digital censorship policies.

Key Terms:

• Section 79(3)(b): IT Act clause removing intermediary immunity for non-compliance with content removal notices.
• Section 69A: IT Act provision for content blocking with procedural safeguards for security and order.
• Safe Harbour: Legal shield protecting intermediaries from liability for user content.
• Shreya Singhal: 2015 Supreme Court ruling limiting IT Act content moderation to constitutional grounds.
• Sahyog Portal: MeitY’s 2024 platform for issuing Section 79(3)(b) blocking orders.
• Article 19(1)(a): Constitutional right to free speech and expression.
• Intermediary: Platforms like X hosting third-party content, regulated by the IT Act.

Link To The Original Article – https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-law/it-act-content-blocking-why-x-has-challenged-govts-use-of-section-79-9899231/