Bengaluru: The Union government has strongly objected to Elon Musk-owned X Corp’s characterisation of the ‘Sahyog’ portal as a “censorship portal”, filing an objection in the Karnataka High Court.
The Centre argued that X had misinterpreted key provisions of the IT Act, particularly the distinctions between Section 69A and Section 79(3)(b).
X Corp contends that Section 79(3)(b) does not empower the government to issue blocking orders, as that authority lies exclusively under Section 69A.
Dismissing X’s allegations, the Centre asserted that the platform’s use of terms like “censorship portal” and “blocking order” is misleading and legally incorrect.
“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’s affidavit further said.
It emphasised that takedown notices under Section 79(3)(b) read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, are removal requests rather than blocking orders.
“The only legal protection it has under 79 of the IT Act, which does not allow it to interfere in government decisions regarding content regulation,” the government affidavit said.
The government further clarified that its March 31, 2023 Office Memorandum does not mention a “Template Blocking Order”, as alleged by X. Instead, it provides a sample template for content removal requests, in line with established procedures.
The Centre submitted that the petitioner is conveniently silent about the intermediaries’ obligations which are enumerated in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 specifically w.r.t. Rule 3(1)(d) of the said Rules in connection with Section 79(3)(b) of IT Act, 2000, the Centre pointed out.
Defending the legal framework, the Centre argued that Section 79(3)(b) balances platform liability and free speech while ensuring compliance with lawful orders.
In contrast, Section 69A empowers the government to block access to online content under specific conditions related to national security, public order, and sovereignty.
The government maintained that X is attempting to conflate 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. It is submitted that the use of the said terminology by a worldwide portal like X is unfortunate and condemnable,” the government said in its affidavit.
As of now, the court has yet to rule on the matter, and further hearings are scheduled for April 3.
X had moved the Karnataka High Court, arguing that the Sahyog portal and related government actions circumvent the statutory framework established by the IT Act and the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.
(IANS)
