Elon Musk’s X challenges India’s ‘unlawful’ censorship mechanism in court
text_fields
Elon Musk’s social media platform, X (formerly Twitter), has filed a legal challenge against the Indian government, opposing what it calls a “parallel” and “unlawful” content censorship regime.
The lawsuit, filed in the Karnataka High Court, contests the government’s interpretation and application of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, which X argues is being misused to bypass procedural safeguards meant to regulate online content restrictions.
According to X, the Indian government, through various ministries and agencies, has been issuing content takedown orders by invoking Section 79(3)(b), rather than following the prescribed process under Section 69A of the IT Act. The platform contends that this violates the 2015 Supreme Court ruling in Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, which clarified that online content could only be blocked through court orders or Section 69A directives, ensuring due process and oversight.
"Even after 23 years since the enactment of Section 79 and 14 years since its current version took effect, the government is now attempting to misuse it to create an unlawful blocking regime without any of the safeguards," X stated in its petition.
X also seeks legal protection against being forced to appoint an employee on Sahyog, an online platform created by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) for managing censorship orders. The company has described Sahyog as a “Censorship Portal”, arguing that it enables unchecked content suppression.
This marks the second time X has challenged India’s online censorship policies.
In 2022, when the platform was still operating under the name Twitter, it contested the government’s content-blocking orders under Section 69A, alleging excessive and disproportionate use of power. However, its plea was dismissed in 2023, with the court ruling that Twitter had failed to comply with existing government directives before seeking judicial intervention.
Under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, social media platforms like X risk losing their legal immunity (safe harbor protection) if they do not block access to flagged content deemed unlawful by any “appropriate” government agency. This legal safeguard is crucial, as it protects online intermediaries from liability for user-generated content.
However, X argues that the IT Ministry (MeitY) has expanded the interpretation of Section 79(3)(b), directing multiple government agencies - including central ministries, state governments, and local law enforcement - to issue content-blocking orders outside of the established Section 69A framework. The company also revealed that MeitY has circulated a "Template Blocking Order", enabling officials to issue censorship directives without independent oversight.
X’s legal filing argues that this process creates a parallel censorship regime with far-reaching consequences, potentially allowing thousands of officials across India to block online content without any accountability or legal safeguards.
One of X’s main objections is the government’s push to mandate the platform’s participation in "Sahyog", a censorship management portal developed under the Ministry of Home Affairs. The platform allows government agencies and police departments to directly issue content takedown requests under Section 79(3)(b), bypassing Section 69A’s legal framework.
X argues that Sahyog is an “unconstitutional and impermissible” tool that facilitates censorship without due process, violating both the IT Act and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shreya Singhal. The company also opposes the government’s demand to appoint a “nodal officer” to ensure compliance with these orders.
"MeitY is attempting to achieve indirectly through various agencies what it cannot do directly under Section 69A," X stated, calling the move a misuse of executive power.