Elon Musk’s X Sues Indian Government Over Alleged Censorship and IT Act Violations
The social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter), owned by American billionaire Elon Musk, has filed a legal challenge against the Government of India in the Karnataka High Court. The lawsuit disputes what X describes as unlawful content regulation and arbitrary censorship, raising concerns about the government’s interpretation of the Information Technology (IT) Act. A key issue highlighted in the petition is the use of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. X argues that the Indian government’s application of this provision is inconsistent with Supreme Court rulings and undermines the fundamental right to free expression in the digital space. The company alleges that authorities are utilising this section to establish an informal content-blocking mechanism, circumventing the structured legal framework laid out in Section 69A of the Act.
X has pointed to the Supreme Court’s 2015 judgment in the Shreya Singhal case, which clarified that online content can only be blocked through a proper judicial process or in accordance with the procedures explicitly outlined under Section 69A. The platform asserts that the government’s approach contradicts this precedent, enabling content removals without adequate legal scrutiny. The Indian Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I&B) has maintained that Section 79(3)(b) requires digital platforms to take down unlawful content when directed to do so by either a court order or an official government directive. If a platform fails to comply within 36 hours, it risks losing the legal immunity provided under Section 79(1), potentially exposing it to liability under various laws, including provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
However, X has strongly contested this interpretation. The company argues that Section 79(3)(b) does not grant the government independent authority to remove content but is instead being misused to justify arbitrary censorship without due process. According to Indian law, the government has the power to restrict public access to digital content under Section 69A of the IT Act if the material is deemed a threat to national security, sovereignty, or public order. The procedure for implementing such restrictions is regulated by the 2009 Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, which mandate a structured review before any blocking orders are issued.
X contends that rather than adhering to these established safeguards, the Indian government is exploiting Section 79(3)(b) as a loophole to remove content without following the legally prescribed procedures. The company believes this practice directly undermines the legal protections designed to prevent arbitrary censorship. A further point of contention in X’s lawsuit is its opposition to the government’s Sahyog portal. Developed by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the Ministry of Home Affairs, this platform was created to streamline takedown requests under Section 79(3)(b) and facilitate direct engagement between social media companies and law enforcement agencies.
However, X has refused to assign a representative to the Sahyog portal, arguing that it effectively functions as a “censorship tool.” The platform claims that by pressuring social media companies to comply with takedown requests without thorough legal review, the portal allows authorities to exert undue influence over online content. In its legal challenge, X asserts that the government’s actions amount to an attempt to regulate digital discourse without judicial oversight, raising broader concerns about freedom of speech and the rule of law in India’s digital ecosystem.
“Must Adhere to the Law”: Government Sources Respond to X’s Lawsuit Against Centre
Following the lawsuit filed by Elon Musk-owned social media platform X against the Indian government, official sources have emphasised that all social media companies must comply with legal requirements. The government, they stated, will follow the due legal process, and digital platforms are expected to adhere to the law. “Process will be followed, and social media platforms should abide by the law,” a senior government source told NDTV. This firm response comes after X, formerly known as Twitter, filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court, challenging what it describes as the Indian government’s misuse of Information Technology laws to establish an “unlawful blocking regime.”
In its petition, X has referred to the Supreme Court’s 2015 Shreya Singhal verdict, a landmark ruling that struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The now-defunct provision had previously criminalised the sending of “offensive” messages via electronic communication devices, which the court found to be unconstitutional. X’s lawsuit also raises concerns regarding the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY). According to the petition, the ministry has instructed various central and state government departments—along with “tens of thousands of local police officers”—that they are authorised to issue content-blocking directives under Section 79(3)(b), bypassing the procedures laid out in Section 69A of the IT Act.
Section 79(3)(b) states that an online intermediary loses its immunity from liability if it fails to “expeditiously remove or disable access” to material flagged by a government agency as being linked to unlawful activities. However, X argues that this provision is being misinterpreted and misused. The social media platform contends that invoking Section 79(3)(b) as a justification for content removal undermines the safeguards established under Section 69A. Under this section, the government is granted the power to block public access to digital content, but only through a structured process that includes legal safeguards against arbitrary censorship.
“Section 79 merely grants intermediaries exemption from liability for third-party content; it does not empower the government to issue content-blocking directives in contravention of Section 69A,” X’s petition states. “More than two decades after Section 79 was enacted, and 14 years since its current version came into force, the authorities are now seeking to exploit this provision to establish an unlawful blocking regime—one that lacks the protections guaranteed under Section 69A, the Blocking Rules, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shreya Singhal.”
With this legal challenge, X has reinforced its stance that the Indian government is overstepping its authority by circumventing the legally prescribed process for blocking content, thereby undermining digital rights and freedom of expression.
With inputs from agencies
Image Source: Multiple agencies
© Copyright 2025. All Rights Reserved Powered by Vygr Media.
