Unhealthy Curbs?

The legal battle between X Corp, formerly known as Twitter, and the Indian government is more weighty than it appears. At its core, it raises extremely pressing questions about free speech, government overreach, and the growing tendency of authorities to control digital spaces. In the latest move, X Corp has moved the Karnataka High Court, challenging the way content-blocking orders are being issued. It has also vehemently opposed the government’s new Sahyog portal, which it calls a ‘censorship portal’.

As a matter of fact, under India’s IT laws, the government can order the blocking of content under Section 69A of the IT Act, which comes with legal safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in 2015. But X argues that in addition to following this process, authorities are also misusing Section 79(3)(b), which does not empower them to directly block content but only holds platforms accountable for failing to remove illegal posts. The company believes this is a blatant attempt to bypass the legal safeguards that exist to prevent arbitrary censorship. Furthermore, the Sahyog portal, created by the Ministry of Home Affairs, allows various government agencies—including local police stations—to issue takedown orders through a centralised system. X Corp sees this as a dangerous move that could lead to widespread suppression of online speech without proper checks. By allowing multiple agencies, instead of just the IT Ministry, to issue such orders, the government risks creating an opaque and unaccountable system that has the potential to curtail free expression. The government, on its part, insists that these are not outright ‘blocking orders’ but mere notifications to social media platforms about illegal content, leaving the decision to remove it in their hands. The problem with this argument is that platforms face the threat of losing their legal protection if they don’t comply, effectively forcing them to take down content even when it might not be legally justified. This creates a chilling effect where companies remove posts to avoid trouble, rather than based on a fair legal process.

This is not the first time X Corp has clashed with the Indian government over content moderation. In 2021, during the farmers’ protests, the company initially resisted orders to remove tweets critical of the government but later complied under pressure. Its ongoing legal challenge over content takedowns is still pending in Indian courts. Now, with the introduction of Sahyog, the battle has intensified, as X sees this as an expansion of the government’s ability to control online discourse without proper oversight. What’s at stake here is not just the rights of a social media company but the fundamental principles of digital freedom in India. If content can be removed arbitrarily, with limited transparency and without judicial scrutiny, then the internet would cease to be a space for free expression and open debate. The Supreme Court had made it clear in the Shreya Singhal case that any censorship must follow due process. Yet, the government seems to be allegedly creating a parallel system that avoids those legal constraints.

India is a democracy, and in a democracy, criticism of the government should not be stifled under the guise of maintaining ‘clean cyberspace’. The Karnataka High Court’s decision will be crucial in determining whether online platforms can continue to function independently or if they will be reduced to mere enforcers of government directives. More than just a legal battle, this case is a test of how much room is left for free speech in the world’s fastest growing democracy.