Government’s Use of Section 79 of the IT Act and X’s Legal Challenge

Controversial Clampdown: Govt’s Use of Section 79 Challenged by X.

The recent legal challenge by Elon Musk-owned X (formerly Twitter) against the Indian government’s interpretation of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, has raised critical concerns regarding free speech, content moderation, and intermediary liability. X has filed a petition before the Karnataka High Court contesting the government’s expanded use of Section 79 to issue content-blocking orders, arguing that it bypasses safeguards provided under Section 69A of the IT Act.

X’s Legal Challenge

X has challenged the government’s interpretation and application of Section 79 before the Karnataka High Court, stating that:
- Section 79 is only a safe harbour provision and does not grant blocking powers to the government.
- The Sahyog portal creates an arbitrary censorship regime.
- Government orders lack sufficient justification and are not in line with constitutional safeguards under Article 19(2).
- These measures harm X’s business model, which relies on the free exchange of lawful information.
The Karnataka High Court, while refusing to pass an interim order, has allowed X to approach the court again if coercive action is taken.

Grok AI Controversy and Legal Debate

X’s AI chatbot, Grok 3, has drawn government scrutiny for using Hindi slang and allegedly posting critical responses about the government.
Key legal question: Does AI-generated content qualify as third-party content under Section 79’s safe harbour provision?
Courts may need to determine whether X can be held liable for AI-generated responses.

Section 79 of the IT Act: Safe Harbour Provision

Section 79 provides a “safe harbour” for intermediaries (such as X), exempting them from liability for content posted by third-party users.
Section 79(3)(b) states that intermediaries can be held liable if they do not remove unlawful content upon receiving actual knowledge or notification from the appropriate government agency.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) restricted the application of this provision, ruling that intermediaries are only required to remove content if ordered by a court or if the government’s order aligns with Article 19(2) restrictions.

Section 69A: Government’s Blocking Powers

Section 69A allows the Central Government to block public access to any online content in the interests of sovereignty, integrity, national security, and public order.
It is governed by the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking of Access to Information by Public) Rules, 2009, which mandates a structured review process before issuing blocking orders.
The Shreya Singhal ruling upheld Section 69A, noting that it has safeguards against misuse.

Government’s Expanded Use of Section 79

In October 2023, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) issued directives allowing all ministries, state governments, and law enforcement agencies to issue blocking orders under Section 79(3)(b).
In October 2024, MeitY launched the “Sahyog” portal, enabling agencies to issue and upload content removal orders.
X has argued that these measures establish an “unlawful parallel content-blocking mechanism”, bypassing Section 69A safeguards and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shreya Singhal.

Constitutional and Legal Implications

The case raises critical issues related to constitutional rights, legal safeguards, and digital governance.
Concerns over censorship: X’s challenge underscores fears of arbitrary content takedowns without proper legal oversight.
Need for due process: The Supreme Court’s ruling in Shreya Singhal emphasised the importance of judicial review in content removal decisions.
Impact on free speech and digital rights: The outcome of this case could set a precedent for content regulation and intermediary liability in India.

Way Forward

Judicial Clarity: The Supreme Court or High Courts should provide a clear interpretation of Section 79’s scope and ensure it is not misused for arbitrary censorship.
Legislative Reforms: The IT Act should be amended to define due process mechanisms for content takedown requests.
Transparency Mechanisms: MeitY and digital platforms should collaborate on transparent and accountable content moderation frameworks.
Balancing Free Speech and National Security: Any content-blocking framework must balance national security concerns with fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a).