X must follow Indian laws: K’taka HC rejects plea against Centre’s takedown orders

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed by social media company X Corp challenging the authority of government officials to issue content takedown orders under the Information Technology Act, 2000. The court underscored that regulation of social media is essential, particularly in cases involving crimes against women, and held that platforms operating in India must comply with the law.

A single-judge bench led by Justice M Nagaprasanna ruled that social media cannot function as an unregulated space detached from statutory obligations. “Social media needs to be regulated, and its regulation is a must, more so in cases of offences against women in particular, failing which the right to dignity, as ordained in the Constitution of a citizen, gets railroaded,” the court observed.

X Corp, formerly Twitter, had approached the High Court seeking a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act does not empower government officials to issue information blocking orders. The company argued that such directions can only be issued under Section 69A of the IT Act read with the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules.

Section 79 of the IT Act provides “safe harbour” protection to intermediaries, shielding them from liability for user-generated content. However, Section 79(3)(b) removes this protection if intermediaries fail to take down or block unlawful content once notified by the government. By contrast, Section 69 of the Act authorises the government to issue directions for interception, monitoring or decryption of information in the interest of sovereignty, security, defence, public order, or to prevent incitement to crime. Such orders require recorded reasons and mandatory compliance by the concerned intermediary. The petition stemmed from multiple takedown orders issued by the Ministry of Railways in connection with posts relating to the stampede at New Delhi Railway Station. X Corp argued that blocking powers lie only under Section 69A, and that coercive actions against the platform or its employees for non-compliance would be unlawful.

Rejecting the company’s contentions, Justice Nagaprasanna said X Corp was subject to a regulated regime within India and could not claim exemption from compliance. The court pointed out that while the company complies with takedown orders in the United States, it has resisted similar directions in India. “The Petitioner follows takedown orders in the US, the birthplace and footland of social media as it criminalises its violation. But the same Petitioner refuses to follow the same on the shores of this nation of similar takedown orders which are founded upon illegality. This sans countenance,” the court remarked, concluding that the petition lacked merit. The bench further stressed that intermediaries operating in India must recognise that liberty is tied to responsibility and accountability. “No media, social media platform in the modern day, may even feel the semblance of exemption from the rigor of discipline of the laws of the land. None may presume to treat the Indian marketplace as a mere playground where information can be disseminated in defiance of statutes or disregard to legality,” the court said.

X Corp had also sought protection from coercive action for not joining the government’s “Sahyog” portal, a platform designed for coordination between citizens, law enforcement, and intermediaries. Dismissing the challenge, Justice Nagaprasanna called the portal an “instrument of public good” conceived under the IT Act.

“It stands as a beacon of cooperation between the citizen and the intermediary, a mechanism through which the state endeavours to combat the growing menace of cybercrime. To assail its validity is to misunderstand its purpose. Hence, the challenge is without merit,” the judge noted. The ruling placed India’s regulatory stance within an international framework, pointing out that most sovereign nations regulate social media activity. “Every sovereign nation regulates it, and India’s action likewise cannot, by any stretch of constitutional imagination, be branded as unlawful,” the court stated. According to the judgment, unregulated speech disguised as liberty risks degenerating into lawlessness, while regulated speech balances liberty and order—the “twin pillars upon which democracy must stand.”

The court maintained that platforms operating in India carry a duty of accountability, without which the rule of law and social harmony could be endangered. “These platforms carry with it the solemn duty of accountability to hold, otherwise it will imperil both the rule of law and the fabric of social harmony,” Justice Nagaprasanna underlined.

The High Court dismissed X Corp’s petition and related applications from interveners. “The petition, for all the aforesaid reasons lacking in merits, stands rejected. The applications of the interveners for the very reasons rendered in the course of the order stand rejected,” the judgment concluded.