X Corp (formerly Twitter) has filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court seeking to block the Indian government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and its Sahyog portal, claiming they create a “parallel censorship mechanism” bypassing judicial safeguards of Section 69A established by the Shreya Singhal verdict. X case against Indian government adds significant weight to India’s ongoing digital regulation debates
🧾 Background & Petitioner’s Arguments
- Filed on March 5, 2025, X contends that Section 79(3)(b), which removes intermediary safe‑harbour protections for non-compliance, is being misused to block content without due process under 69A
- They call the Sahyog portal a “censorship apparatus” forcing platforms to comply with takedown notices lacking judicial oversight, in conflict with procedural safeguards of Shreya Singhal (2015) .
- X warns that non-onboarding of staff to Sahyog may lead to coercive action, seeking relief and clarification that only 69A orders can authorize content blocking
⚖️ Government’s Response
- The Centre asserts X—being a foreign company—lacks standing under Article 19 and may not contest due diligence duties under Section 79
- It distinguishes Section 79(3)(b) (a procedural notice) from Section 69A (a formal blocking order with penal effects), arguing Sahyog streamlines lawful compliance
- Solicitor General Tushar Mehta emphasised that adherence to Section 79 is voluntary, but failure may revoke safe‑harbour protection—not automatic censorship
📅 Court Proceedings & Next Steps
- Initial admissions occurred in March 2025; interim relief was denied in early April, though X is allowed to seek future protection if penalized
- Final arguments were heard on April 24, 2025, with amendments to X’s petition allowed by July 1, 2025
- The next hearing is scheduled for July 1, 2025, testing if Section 79 can lawfully be used for mandatory content removal .
🧠 Broader Implications
- Judicial Oversight vs Executive Power
A ruling in favor of X could reaffirm judicial due process via Section 69A and reign in executive tendencies to regulate content behind closed doors. - Platform Liability & Free Speech
The case redefines intermediary obligations and clarifies safe‑harbour limits for platforms like X - Policy Precedent & Digital Regulation
Outcomes may guide upcoming frameworks like the Digital India Act and influence how the government engages with intermediaries.
✅ Summary
The X case against Indian government is a pivotal legal battle over digital speech, accountability, and platform regulation. At stake is the balance between national interest and judicial safeguards. All eyes are on the Karnataka High Court’s decision, set for July 1, which could reshape India’s digital governance.
