Bengaluru: The Union government has strongly opposed X Corp’s characterization of the ‘Sahyog’ portal as a "censorship portal," filing an objection in the Karnataka High Court. The Centre contended that the social media giant, owned by Elon Musk, had misinterpreted key provisions of the Information Technology (IT) Act and was misleading the court by conflating distinct legal provisions.
The Centre argued that X had misrepresented the differences between Section 69A and Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. X Corp maintains that Section 79(3)(b) does not empower the government to issue blocking orders, asserting that such authority is exclusive to Section 69A.
Dismissing X’s claims, the government stated that the platform’s references to the Sahyog portal as a “censorship portal” and its use of the term “blocking order” were legally incorrect and misleading.
"By raising a baseless concern of censorship, X is trying to portray itself as a user, which it is not. Calling Sahyog a censorship portal is misleading and unacceptable," the Centre asserted in its affidavit.
It clarified that takedown notices issued under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act when read alongside Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, are requests for content removal rather than formal blocking orders. The government emphasized that the only legal protection available to X falls under Section 79 of the IT Act, which does not grant the platform authority to challenge government decisions regarding content regulation.
Refuting X's allegations, the Centre further stated that its March 31, 2023, Office Memorandum does not include a “Template Blocking Order,” as claimed by the company. Instead, it provides a sample template for content removal requests, adhering to established procedures.
The affidavit also pointed out that X had remained silent on the obligations of intermediaries outlined in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, particularly Rule 3(1)(d), which aligns with Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000. The government maintained that the legal framework under Section 79(3)(b) strikes a balance between platform liability and free speech while ensuring compliance with lawful orders.
In contrast, the Centre clarified that Section 69A explicitly empowers the government to block access to online content under conditions concerning national security, public order, and sovereignty. It argued that X was deliberately conflating these two distinct legal provisions to mislead the court.
“It is submitted that by raising a groundless concern of censorship, the petitioner is attempting to conflate its position with that of a user who posts content on its platform, which it is not. The use of the said terminology by a worldwide portal like X is unfortunate and condemnable,” the government stated in its affidavit.
The Karnataka High Court has yet to issue a ruling on the matter, with further hearings scheduled for April 3.
X Corp had approached the court, arguing that the Sahyog portal and related government actions circumvent the statutory framework of the IT Act and violate the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in 'Shreya Singhal v. Union of India'.
With IANS inputs
