In a detailed response to the Karnataka High Court, the Centre refuted the claims made by X Corp in its petition challenging India’s information-blocking framework.
The government argued that X Corp had misinterpreted the provisions of the Information Technology Act, particularly Sections 69A and 79.
X Corp contended that Section 79 does not grant the government the authority to issue content-blocking orders in a manner that circumvents the safeguards established under Section 69A, its associated blocking rules, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Shreya Singhal case.
However, the government maintained that Section 69A explicitly empowers the Centre to issue blocking orders under specific conditions while incorporating multiple safeguards for online content regulation. It further clarified that Section 69A differs significantly from Section 79, which merely mandates that intermediaries exercise due diligence upon receiving notices from authorised agencies.
“The framework under Section 79 does not authorize ‘blocking orders.’ Instead, it informs intermediaries of their obligations, and failure to comply could result in the loss of safe harbor protections and potential action under Rule 7 of the IT Rules, 2021,” the government stated.
Additionally, the Centre asserted that while Section 69A provides the legal basis for blocking access to content with enforceable consequences for non-compliance, Section 79 outlines the conditions under which intermediaries can claim safe harbor protection.
According to the government, X Corp wrongly equated the “blocking orders” issued under Section 69A with the “notices” under Section 79, despite the Supreme Court having previously distinguished between the two in the Shreya Singhal ruling.
Addressing concerns raised by X Corp, the government defended the Sahyog portal, describing it as a facilitative tool designed to streamline coordination between intermediaries and law enforcement agencies. The Centre emphasized that the portal ensures a structured mechanism for swift action against unlawful online content, benefiting both intermediaries and investigative authorities.
“It is misleading to portray Sahyog as a censorship tool. By doing so, the petitioner misrepresents itself as a content creator rather than an intermediary. Such a stance from a global platform like X is both regrettable and unacceptable,” the government asserted.
The Centre also highlighted that as a foreign commercial entity, X Corp has no inherent right to host or defend third-party content on its platform. It pointed out that in a previous case involving Twitter, the Karnataka High Court had explicitly ruled that Articles 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution do not apply to the company.
With this submission, the government reinforced its position that the legal framework governing information blocking is well-defined and distinct, rejecting allegations of overreach.
According to its website, Sahyog was developed to automate the process of sending notices to intermediaries by the appropriate government or its agencies under the IT Act, 2000, facilitating the removal or restriction of access to information used for unlawful activities.
