The lawsuit filed by the Social Media Platform Elon Musk X claims that the Indian government uses a section to create a parallel content blocking mechanism, bypassing the structured legal process outlined in section 69a.
The Giant of Social Media “X” (previously Twitter), which belonged to the US billionaire Elon Musk, filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court of Karnataki against the Indian government, challenging what he calls the content and arbitrary censorship.
This has caused concern over the interpretation of the Center for Information Technology (IT), in particular, the use of Section 79 (3) (b), which “X” claims to violate the rulings of the Supreme Court and undermines free expression on the Internet.
The lawsuit states that the government uses a section to create a parallel content lock mechanism, bypassed the structured legal process outlined in section 69a.
“X” claimed that this approach was contradicted by the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Schray Singala case, which found that the content could only be blocked through the proper trial or the legally defined route under Section 69a.
According to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (I & B), section 79 (3) (b) online platforms to remove illegal content at the order of the court or government notice.
If the platform does not meet for 36 hours, it risks losing the safe protection of the harbor in accordance with Section 79 (1) and may be held accountable in accordance with different laws, including the Indian Criminal Code (IPC).
However, X disputed this interpretation, claiming that the provision does not give government independent powers to block the content.
Instead, he accused the authorities of abusing the law of bringing arbitrary censorship without the next process.
According to Section 69a IT, the government has the right to block access to digital content if it is considered a threat to national security, sovereignty or public order.
However, this process is regulated by the 2009 information technology (procedure and guarantees for blocking public access rules) that require a structured decision -making process.
“X” claims that instead of performing these procedures, the government uses section 79 (3) as a label, allowing you to remove content without the necessary control.
The platform views this as a direct violation of the legal guarantees designed to prevent arbitrary censorship.
Another major point in the legal task of the social media platform is the confrontation with the Sahyog government portal.
This platform was developed by the Indian Cyber Cyber Coel (I4C) in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, was designed to streamline requests for withdrawal in accordance with Section 79 (3) (b) and contributed direct communication between the platforms of social media and law enforcement agencies.
However, “X” refused on board an employee on the Sahyog portal, stating that it acts as a “censorship tool”, which presses on the platform to remove content without proper legal consideration.
The lawsuit states that this is another government attempt to control the Internet disk without judgment.
(Except for headlines, this story did not edit DNA employees and published with PTI)
