X Corp, which runs the micro-blogging platform X, is fighting two major legal battles against the Indian government over online content regulation. The company has approached the Karnataka High Court, arguing that the government is unfairly using a law to take down posts without following proper procedures.
The social media company says this goes against a Supreme Court ruling that protects free speech online.
At the same time, X has also filed a case in the Delhi High Court, refusing to join the government's SAHYOG portal, which is meant for reporting and removing illegal content.
The company argues that it already has its own system for handling legal requests and that forcing it to use SAHYOG would create a separate system without enough legal safeguards.
These cases are part of an ongoing tussle between X and the Indian government over who controls online content and how. Here’s what we know so far about both legal battles.
X's Petition In Karnataka High Court
X has filed a petition in the Karnataka High Court challenging how the Indian government is using Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act. The company argues that this section is being misused to create an illegal content-blocking system, bypassing proper legal procedures.
It says that the section violates the Supreme Court’s 2015 Shreya Singhal judgment, which ruled that online content can only be blocked by a court order or under the structured process of Section 69A of the IT Act.
What is Section 79(3)(b)?
This section of the IT Act states that platforms like X can lose their "safe harbour" protection—which shields them from legal liability for user-generated content—if they fail to remove content when notified by an "appropriate" government authority.
Union ministries, including Home, Finance, Railways, and Defence, have issued notifications appointing nodal officers under Section 79(3)(b) to request content takedowns. The Elon Musk-owned platform argues that these notifications are unconstitutional and should be struck down.
The company contends that this system undermines Section 69A, making it ineffective and meaningless. The Shreya Singhal judgment upheld Section 69A only because it had clear rules and procedural safeguards. In contrast, Section 79(3)(b) lacks any defined process or oversight, giving government and law enforcement agencies unchecked power to remove content arbitrarily.
X’s Allegations Against MeitY
X has also accused the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) of encouraging this unofficial blocking process. It cites an office memorandum from October 31, 2023, in which MeitY directed central ministries, state governments, and police departments to appoint officials who could issue takedown notices.
The company argues that MeitY itself does not have the legal authority to issue such orders, let alone delegate these powers to other agencies.
As evidence, the platform has submitted three blocking orders issued by the Indian Railways in February 2024. These orders were also forwarded to MeitY, reinforcing X’s claim that the ministry is facilitating a shadow censorship system outside the legal framework.
X's Petition In Delhi High Court
X Corp has told the Delhi High Court that it cannot be forced to join the government's SAHYOG portal, a platform designed to centralise efforts against cybercrime. The company argues that it already has its own system to process legal content takedown requests and does not need to be part of an additional framework.
The platform also cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India case, arguing that SAHYOG operates outside the legal framework of Section 69A of the IT Act and creates a parallel system without those protections, making it legally questionable.
Senior counsel Akhil Sibal, representing X, informed the court that the company has also challenged SAHYOG in the Karnataka High Court, where it has labeled the portal a "censorship" tool.
What is SAHYOG?
SAHYOG is a digital platform developed by the Ministry of Home Affairs to streamline the process of sending content takedown notices to social media companies and other online platforms. According to the MHA, the portal aims to automate requests from law enforcement agencies to remove unlawful content.
The platform is being developed in multiple phases. In its current phase, it facilitates takedown requests. In the next stage, it will also allow law enforcement agencies to send information requests to platforms. While the government promotes SAHYOG as a way to improve coordination against cybercrime, X argues that it gives authorities unchecked power to remove content without the legal safeguards outlined in Section 69A.
Through its legal challenge, X is resisting what it sees as increasing government control over online content moderation, raising concerns about free speech and due process in digital regulation.
In light of this, the court was informed that 38 intermediaries, including Telegram, Apple, Google, LinkedIn, YouTube, Microsoft, Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, have already onboarded the SAHYOG portal. X’s case on this matter is scheduled for a hearing on April 29.
X vs. The Indian Government
The microblogging platform has been involved in several legal disputes with the Indian government concerning content regulation and platform governance. Notable instances include:
Karnataka High Court Petition (2023):
In 2023, X challenged multiple blocking orders issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. The company argued that these orders were excessive and lacked proper justification. However, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition, imposing a Rs 50 lakh fine on X Corp for non-compliance with government directives.
Content Removal Disputes During Farmer Protests (2021):
During the 2021 farmer protests, the Indian government directed X to remove accounts and tweets critical of its handling of the situation. The platform initially resisted but eventually complied after facing warnings of legal consequences.
Notably, under Elon Musk's ownership, X's compliance with government takedown requests reportedly increased. Reportedly, the platform complied with approximately 80% of such requests, up from 50% under previous management. This included actions in India, where accounts of opposition politicians and journalists were blocked, raising concerns about the platform's stance on free speech.