Billionaire Elon Musk’s social media platform X, formerly Twitter, has filed a lawsuit against the Indian government, challenging what it describes as a “parallel” and “unlawful” content censorship regime enforced under the Information Technology Act. Through its petition submitted to the Karnataka High Court in early March 2025, X claims that various government authorities are issuing content takedown notices under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, attempting to circumvent the procedural safeguards outlined under Section 69A, which regulate content blocking.
According to the petition, this alleged misuse violates the Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 judgment in the case of Shreya Singhal, which stipulates that content can only be censored through a court order or under the particular guidelines of Section 69A of the IT Act. X contends that “a full 23 years after Section 79 was enacted, and 14 years after the current version went into effect,” government entities are improperly invoking Section 79 to establish an unlawful blocking regime absent the necessary protections. The dilemma over online freedom of expression and governmental restrictions grows even more pressing in the context of this lawsuit.
X seeks protection from repercussions arising out of its refusal to comply with the Sahyog portal—an initiative of the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), intended for managing censorship orders. X characterizes the portal as a “Censorship Portal,” arguing that the obligation to appoint a dedicated employee for this system is “impermissible.” Notably, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) and the Indian government have yet to respond to inquiries regarding the matter as of March 20, 2025.
This is not the first time X has taken legal action against the Indian online censorship policies. In 2022, while still operating under the Twitter banner, the company had launched a challenge to content blocking orders issued under Section 69A of the IT Act. However, the judiciary dismissed this plea in 2023, stating the platform approached the courts without adhering to directives from the government.
The heart of the dispute lies in the interpretation of Section 79(3)(b), which allows online intermediaries like X to lose their safe harbour protections if they do not remove flagged content upon government orders. These safe harbour protections are vital for social media platforms, safeguarding them against legal responsibility for hosting user-generated content. X argues that MeitY has issued directives empowering numerous central and state government agencies, including local police officers, to issue information blocking orders without adhering to the Section 69A protocols—essentially bypassing the established legal framework.
Moreover, the situation is exacerbated by MeitY providing a “Template Blocking Order” for its agencies, pointing towards a systematic effort to enforce conformity with this perceived censorship regime. X Corp asserts, “MeitY seeks to do indirectly through other agencies what it cannot do directly under Section 69A, which is a colourable exercise of power.” This brings into question the limits of governmental authority in the digital realm and the checks and balances necessary to uphold free expression.
X is seeking a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act does not grant the government the authority to issue information blocking orders, arguing that this power is strictly governed under Section 69A. The Ministry of Home Affairs, among others, has reportedly produced notifications intended to empower their officials to wield these orders under Section 79(3)(b), therefore evading the procedural safeguards mandated under Section 69A.
The implications of this accusation are far-reaching, as it directly affects X’s business model, which relies heavily on the free exchange of information. Company representatives state that the government’s actions not only contravene rights secured under Articles 14 and 301 of the Constitution but also threaten to initiate extensive and unchecked censorship of information within India.
The legal discourse raises significant questions about how governmental interventions serve to maintain public order while balancing individual rights to freely express opinions online. The Indian government maintains that its actions are necessary to regulate misinformation, yet X asserts that these tactics pervert legitimate expression. Meanwhile, the rise of xAI, Musk's generative AI platform, further complicates the issue as it too comes under scrutiny for the responses provided on public figures, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The outcome of this case may set an essential precedent regarding the balance of power between social media platforms and government authorities in India. As legal tensions heighten, the relationship between the government, social media entities, and the public remains pivotal in shaping the future landscape of online communications and governance.
