Central Government Slams Censorship Allegations by Elon Musk’s X in Karnataka High Court

New Delhi: The central government has severely criticized the accusation of censorship levelled by X, the social media company that was previously called Twitter and is owned by Elon Musk. The government, in an affidavit filed with the Karnataka High Court, opposed X’s terming the Sahyog portal as a “censorship portal.”

X, which is challenging the development and utilization of the Sahyog portal, an online platform utilized by government agencies to issue orders for blocking content, had previously described it as a tool for censorship. The portal enables government agencies to give orders to block data, and the government asserts that the allegations by X of censorship are unwarranted and inappropriate.

The government, in its affidavit, noted that X’s efforts to draw an analogy between itself and its users, although not a content provider, were misguided. It went on to add, “It is submitted that by bringing a baseless complaint of censorship, the petitioner is trying to equate its stance with that of a user posting content on its platform, which it is not. Use of the phrase ‘censorship portal’ by a global platform like X is regrettable and deplorable.”

X had filed the Karnataka High Court with a writ petition protesting against the establishment and operationalization of the Sahyog portal on the ground that it runs contrary to Section 69A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000. The portal provides for orders by government departments for blocking of content without appropriate checks and balances under the IT Act, X said bypassing the statutory procedure enacted by the Supreme Court’s milestone 2015 judgment in *Shreya Singhal v. Union of India*.

The government, though, refuted X’s claims that the government is not exempt from sending information-blocking orders under Section 69A of the Act, as Section 79 of the IT Act gives safe harbor to intermediaries.

The affidavit also added, “The apparent intention of the current petition is a general right to invoke safe harbor protections with no obligation on the intermediary themselves. This is inherently flawed and contrary to the very idea of safe harbor itself.”

The government also highlighted that X, being a foreign company, does not have fundamental rights as enshrined under Part III of the Indian Constitution. “The sole statutory right it possesses is granted under Section 79 of the IT Act 2000, and that does not authorize it to request hosting or defend against deletion of third-party content on its site,” the affidavit said. The government, in its reply, said that the intermediary has no right to question government instructions and must follow local statutory platforms if it desires to enjoy safe harbor protections.

Karnataka High Court has been communicated that the safe harbor protection awarded to intermediaries is not permanent and is based on due diligence. The safe harbor is said to be communicated as not a constitutional right nor within the coverage of Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, under which freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed, but is ruled by the national laws of the nation where the intermediary is operational.

The case will come up for scrutiny by the Karnataka High Court, which has yet to rule on X’s plea against the Sahyog portal.

The Central government condemns Elon Musk’s X allegations of censorship in an affidavit submitted in advance of the Karnataka High Court. X raises objections to blocking content using the portal.