X Challenges Govt’s Use of Section 79 of IT Act

Why in the News?

Elon Musk-owned X (formerly Twitter) has challenged the Indian government’s use of Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000, along with Section 69A, arguing that it grants broad and unchecked powers to block content on the platform. X filed a petition before the Karnataka High Court on March 17, citing concerns over freedom of speech and arbitrary content moderation.

X Challenges Govt's Use of Section 79 of IT Act

About X’s Legal Challenge:

  • X has contested the government’s interpretation of Section 79, which is meant to provide a safe harbor for intermediaries against liability for third-party content.
  • The company argues that the government is misusing the provision to enforce unlawful content takedowns.
  • Section 69A of the IT Act allows the government to issue blocking orders, but X claims that due process is not followed.
  • X’s petition refers to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shreya Singhal (2015), which struck down Section 66A and clarified that content could only be blocked through legal procedures.

Concerns Over Government Authority

  • The Centre allegedly issued directives to X without providing sufficient justification.
  • Section 79(3)(b) states that intermediaries can be held liable if they fail to remove unlawful content upon receiving notice.
  • The government launched the “Sahyog” portal, allowing agencies to issue blocking orders, raising concerns over transparency.
  • X fears that such measures could limit free speech and set a dangerous precedent for content moderation in India.

Court Proceedings & Next Steps

  • A single-judge bench refused to pass an interim order but allowed X to approach a larger bench.
  • The case will be heard next on March 27, where the constitutional validity of these provisions will be examined.

Government’s Use of Section 79 of the IT Act :

Section 79: Safe Harbour for Intermediaries

●     Protects intermediaries (e.g., X) from liability for third-party content.

●     Section 79(3)(b) allows liability if unlawful content isn’t removed after notification.

SC’s Restrictions (Shreya Singhal Case, 2015)

●     Content removal applies only if:

○      A court order directs it.

○      A government order is issued under Article 19(2) restrictions.

Government’s Expanded Use

●     Oct 2023: MeitY allowed ministries, states, and police to issue blocking orders.

●     Oct 2024: “Sahyog” portal launched, expanding censorship scope.

X’s Legal Challenge

●     Argues orders bypass Section 69A safeguards and violate Shreya Singhal ruling.

●     Claims Section 79 is being misused to block content unlawfully.

Grok Controversy & Legal Debate

●     X’s AI chatbot Grok 3 faces scrutiny for critical responses.

●     Legal question: Does AI-generated content qualify as “third-party” content?

●     Courts must decide X’s liability for Grok’s responses under safe harbour laws.