X, formerly Twitter, has filed a petition in the Karnataka High Court challenging the Indian government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act. The company argues that the provision is being misused to bypass legal safeguards and enforce arbitrary content blocking, violating the Supreme Court’s 2015 Shreya Singhal judgment. The judgment had ruled that content could only be blocked through a competent court order or under the structured process of Section 69A.
Under Section 79(3)(b), an intermediary like X can lose its safe harbour protections—shielding it from liability for third-party content—if it fails to remove or disable access to content when directed by the government. However, X contends that this provision does not grant the government the power to block content. The company claims that authorities are using it as a tool for censorship, sidestepping the procedural safeguards of Section 69A.
X is also seeking legal protection against being forced to onboard an employee on Sahyog, a government portal created by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) to streamline takedown requests under Section 79(3)(b). The company has called Sahyog a “censorship portal,” arguing that there is no legal basis for its creation or for compelling social media platforms to appoint a nodal officer for it. X maintains that it has already complied with the necessary requirements under the IT Rules, 2021, and should not be forced to adhere to additional unofficial mandates.
During a hearing on March 17, Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed X to approach the court if the government takes any “precipitative action” against it. The government, however, clarified that no punitive measures have been taken against the platform for refusing to join Sahyog. X has argued that the broader implication of these blocking orders could lead to “significant and unrestrained censorship of information in India.”
Multiple Union ministries, including home, finance, railways, and defense, have reportedly issued notifications designating nodal officers under Section 79(3)(b) to demand content removals. X has challenged these notifications as unconstitutional, arguing that they effectively render Section 69A “meaningless.” The company points out that unlike Section 69A, which limits blocking to specific reasons such as national security and public order, Section 79(3)(b) lacks any clear restrictions or review mechanisms, allowing authorities to take down content arbitrarily.
X has also accused the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) of unlawfully facilitating this parallel content-blocking system. The company has cited an October 31, 2023, office memorandum, which it claims encouraged all central ministries, state governments, and police chiefs to appoint nodal officers to issue takedown notices. X argues that MeitY is delegating powers it does not lawfully possess. As evidence, X has submitted three blocking orders issued by the Indian Railways in February 2024, which were also forwarded to MeitY.
X maintains that these government actions are harming its ability to operate in India, as its business model depends on users being able to share lawful information freely. This is not the company’s first legal battle with India’s content regulation policies. In 2022, X challenged blocking orders issued under Section 69A that targeted entire accounts rather than specific tweets, calling the move disproportionate. However, in 2023, the Karnataka High Court ruled that the government had the authority to block entire accounts and imposed a ₹50 lakh penalty on X for non-compliance.
In its latest legal challenge, X argues that the misuse of Section 79(3)(b) represents an attempt to bypass established legal procedures and create a censorship mechanism without proper checks and balances. The case is part of a broader legal struggle over the extent of government control over digital platforms.
In a separate case in the Delhi High Court concerning how social media companies handle police information requests, X has maintained that it cannot be compelled to join Sahyog. During a hearing on March 18, Justice Pratibha M. Singh noted that the company’s arguments against the portal would be considered towards the end of April.
