X Corp (previously Twitter) presented a petition before the Superior Court of Karnataka, seeking protection of any coercive action against the company, its representatives or employees, for not joining the censorship portal ‘Sahyog’, until the final adjudication of its request.
The ‘SAHYOG’ portal has been developed to automate the process of sending elimination notices under section 79 (3) (b) of the Information Technology Law, 2000, to intermediaries by the appropriate government or its agency, to facilitate the elimination or disablement of access to any information, data or communication link that is used to commit an illegal act.
Today, during the audience Judge M Nagaprasanna Orally he commented that many illegal activities are glorifying through social media platforms and pointed out that the court would consider the issue of violating the law and showing it on social networks.
“Today, in the form of this road, illegal activities are glorified. What it does is, send a signal. That sign of illegality; when the government comes the mechanism to control … Today the information is power …The propagation of information (MI) is dangerous“ The court commented orally.
He also noticed “I am saying it hypothetically. There is a law that you should not do something. There are people who would violate the law with impunity and glorify that if you allow that rupture of the law and glorify that rupture of the law … These are larger questions that we will answer.”
The petition seeks an address to several ministries of the Union of India by taking coercive or harmful measures against X in relation to the ‘information blocking orders’ issued other than those issued in accordance with section 69a of the Law of IT, read with the blocking rules.
In essence, the statement of X is that several officers of the ministries of the Union are issuing notices under section 79 of the IT to eliminate the content, which are actually ‘of the blocking of orders’ under section 69a of the Law. X argues that the Government cannot issue blocking orders under section 79, ignoring the procedure that is required to be followed under section 60 of the law.
For the context, section 69 deals with the power of the central or state government to issue addresses to ‘block’ public access to any information. While, section 79 of the IT Law exempts an intermediary of responsibility for any information, data or communication link carried out by a third party. However, section 79 (3) (b) establishes that when receiving real knowledge or when notified by the appropriate government that any information is being used to commit the illegal act, the intermediary would be responsible if it cannot quickly eliminate access to such information.
X seeks a statement that section 79 (3) (b) of the Law of IT does not confer the authority to issue information blocking orders under the law, and that such orders can only be issued under section 69a of the Law of IT (Read with information technology (procedure and safeguard to block for access to information by public), 2009).
During the hearing, lawyer Manu Kulkarni, appearing for X, argued that the UOI was forcing him to board on the Sahyog portal. Senior lawyer Kg Raghavan, who also appeared for X, expressed concern that several authorities and officers in the country issue notices to eliminate the content of the platform. Raghavan argued that an authority can ask an intermediary to eliminate the content only under section 69 of the IT law. He affirmed that due to a ‘back door entrance’, several authorities are exercising power under SEC 79 of IT Law.
The court will continue to listen to the matter on March 27.
Previously, the petition presented by X CORP defies the blocking orders issued by the government of India through the Ministry of Electronics and IT to lead the company to eliminate content on the social media platform. After this, he has presented an appeal that is pending.
Case title: X Corp and Union of India & Others
No case: WP 7405/2025
(Compiled by Sanjana Dadmi)
