‘Indirect censorship': Digipub moves Karnataka High Court supporting X Corp's plea against takedown orders
A bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was hearing the case challenging the blocking orders on X using Section 79 (3)(B) of the Information Technology (IT) Act. X Corp also raised issues with the Sahyog portal for intermediaries, which it has previously referred to as a censorship portal.
Previously, during Tuesday's hearing, X Corp's counsel, senior advocate K G Raghavan, argued that government officials were issuing the takedown orders for social media posts without applying any uniform standard. X Corp has been arguing that these takedown orders can be issued only through the mechanism laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, that is, through Section 69(A) of the Information Technology Act, and not Section 79 (3)(B).
Raghavan previously argued that 69A had been upheld by the apex court on account of inherent safeguards, while 79(3)(b), which deals with the removal of protection from intermediaries like X, did not have such safeguards.
Senior advocate Aditya Sondhi, representing Digipub, stated, 'X is before the high court as an intermediary….the parties directly affected by the entire exercise that the government has come up with is us….these media organisations are in a dual capacity of providing and receiving content online.' He pointed out that in the exercise of takedown of content by the intermediaries, the content creator in question did not get the chance to be heard.
He also questioned the manner in which Rule (3)(1) (d) of the IT rules, which refers back to Section 79 (3) (b), is being applied, raising the issue of free speech implications. Referring to safe harbour protections of intermediaries being a free speech right, he said, 'It is precisely this, the indirect censorship, that is now being played out through this mechanism. An officer unhappy with a news report etc not palatable to his personal politics, political master morality….sits in his office and says take it down. That is the chilling effect.'
Referring to the current takedown orders as well as the Sahyog platform, Sondhi stated that the situation was that of an 'ad hoc executive regime'. He added, 'A judicial determination of an unlawful act by a duly constituted court of law on the one hand – and a cyclostyled form in the hands of an officer to fill in a couple of blanks, directly infringing Article 19 (1)(a) [freedom of speech].'
The hearing is set to continue on July 17.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
4 hours ago
- Indian Express
Open to making amendments if the law is misused: Minister Yogesh Kadam on the Maharashtra Special Public Security Bill
The Maharashtra Special Public Security (MSPS) Bill, which seeks 'to provide for effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of left wing extremist organisations', was recently passed by both the Maharashtra Assembly and the Legislative Council through a voice vote. The Bill has drawn sharp criticism from the Opposition over 'vague definitions' and 'potential misuse'. In an interview with The Indian Express, Yogesh Kadam, Minister of State (MoS) for Home, who tabled the Bill in the Legislative Council, defended its provisions and addressed concerns around its implementation. Excerpts from the interview: Q. The Opposition alleges this law is aimed at stifling protest and dissent. How do you respond? Yogesh Kadam: That is not the intention at all. The Bill clearly targets frontal organisations linked to Maoist groups. The concern raised is – 'what if a labour union protests and something unlawful happens? Will they be prosecuted under this Act?' The answer is no. A protester raising a voice for a cause will not be affected. The Bill defines 'unlawful activity' specifically – it refers to actions carried out by or in support of Maoist-linked organisations by anyone who is actively involved or directly supports them. Q. But the Opposition argues that terms like 'illegal activity', 'left wing', 'extremism', or 'support' are vague and can be misused. Kadam: Maoists have evolved. Their presence is no longer confined to jungles. Urban Naxals work under various covers – students, teachers, farmers, NGO workers. Their methods are deceptive and difficult to pin down. That's why the definitions in the Bill reflect this broad and changing modus operandi. These terms haven't been randomly inserted – they are based on past patterns and intelligence inputs. Urban Naxals operate covertly. We have seen this with Delhi University's former professor G N Saibaba, and others like Basava Raju, a labour leader later found with Maoists in the forest. Their first tool is agitation – creating unrest to destabilise elected governments. But not all agitations are to suspected. For example, if Konkan farmers protest against a mining project, that's their right. What matters is intent. This Act is about intent. If someone is protesting for their livelihood or rights, that's their constitutional right. But if an organisation uses that protest as a cover for Maoist activity, this law will come into play. Q: The state government has said 64 urban Naxal-linked organisations are active in Maharashtra. Are they identified already? Kadam: Yes, they have been identified, and once the Act is notified and enforced, action will be initiated as per the provisions. Q: The government claims that the MSPS Bill will be used only against organisations, but the legislation has provisions to prosecute individuals; isn't this a contradiction? Kadam: If someone is directly supporting a banned Maoist-linked group – say by funding it or helping its operations, or is a member of the organisation, then that individual can be prosecuted. But only when clear, proven links are established. The focus remains on direct involvement… Remember, organisations are made up of individuals. If someone is knowingly aiding a banned Maoist group, the law will apply. But that involvement must be proven with evidence. Q: How will the government distinguish between a genuine protest and one with Maoist involvement? Kadam: This Bill will not be invoked if there is just a protest. It comes into effect only if there is a link to an organisation identified as Maoist-aligned. If a protest involves such links, we will act – but with due process. The three-member advisory board – comprising a retired district judge, a serving or retired high court judge, and a public prosecutor – will examine all evidence before any organisation is banned or any individual prosecuted. The board will scrutinise the evidence, verify the organisation's link to Maoist activity, and only then can a ban or prosecution proceed. Evidence is key. Q: But the Bill allows non-bailable offences and arrest without warrant. Isn't that a recipe for misuse? What safeguards are in place to prevent misuse by the police? Kadam: The police can't arbitrarily act under this law. The authority to ban an organisation lies with the three-member advisory board. No organisation or individual can be targeted without evidence, and that evidence will have to stand in court. There is absolutely no scope for arbitrary arrest. The provisions come into force only after an organisation is officially banned. And before a ban is imposed, the board must approve it based on submitted evidence. Q: What if misuse does happen – will the government consider amending the law? Kadam: Of course. Every law evolves and can be amended. Even the Right To Information (RTI) Act has seen amendments. If, after enforcement, we see any genuine misuse or receive constructive suggestions, we are open to making changes through amendments to its provisions. In fact, if needed, we can amend this law in this very session itself. There's always scope for revision if there is a good suggestion. We are not rigid. Q: Can you explain the scope and function of the three-member advisory board? Kadam: Once the government identifies an organisation and submits evidence of its Maoist links, this board will examine all the material. We have to submit documentary proof, intelligence reports, and establish links to Maoist activity. The organisation in question can also present its defence. If the board is not convinced, the ban won't go through. That's our safeguard against arbitrary action. It's a transparent process. Q: The Opposition has demanded that the Opposition leader be added to this board for checks and balances. Why not? Kadam: There are no politicians on the board – neither from the ruling side nor the Opposition. It consists only of legal professionals – judges and lawyers – to ensure neutrality. In fact, other states that have similar Acts – like Chhattisgarh, Odisha, and Telangana – don't even have such a board. They ban organisations outright. Q. Why does the Bill only cover left-wing extremism? Aren't right-wing extremist organisations also active in Maharashtra? Kadam: Left-wing extremism refers specifically to Maoist and Naxal movements that openly reject the Indian Constitution and operate with their own parallel ideology and constitution. This term was coined by the United Progressive Alliance government in 2007. They reject India's Constitution entirely and aim to overthrow the state. Right-wing extremism, if it involves violence or illegal acts, is already covered under other stringent laws like the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Action has been taken in cases of right-wing violence, be it in the Malegaon bomb blasts case or other cases. But unlike Maoists, right-wing groups do not reject India's Constitution or seek its overthrow. Q: Journalists meet everyone. Could they be implicated for simply interviewing or covering a news story? Kadam: Absolutely not. Meeting someone for information or interviews does not qualify as involvement. The law only applies to those actively helping Maoist organisations – whether by spying, passing information, or offering logistical support. No journalist, politician, or citizen will be targeted unfairly. That's what the advisory board safeguards against. But if someone – whether journalist, politician, or citizen – deliberately helps a banned organisation, provides internal information, or aids operations, then that's a different matter. The law targets active support, not association or conversation.
Mint
8 hours ago
- Mint
ULFA(I) claims drone attacks on its camps along Myanmar border by Indian Army, defence official says no such information
The banned ULFA(I) on Sunday claimed drone attacks on its camps along the Myanmar border by the Indian Army, though there was no confirmation about the development from the armed forces. According to a PTI report, the ULFA(I) said that the attacks were carried out with drones in the early hours at several mobile camps and that a senior leader of the banned outfit was killed. The outfit also claimed that 19 others were injured in the attacks. When contacted, a defence spokesperson in Guwahati told PTI that there was no information of any such incident. 'There are no inputs with the Indian Army of such an operation,' Lt Col Mahendra Rawat said. On June 14, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) had chargesheeted three people accused in the case relating to the ULFA(I) conspiracy to carry out multiple IED blasts in Assam on Independence Day last year. The chargesheeted were identified as Paresh Baruah, Chairman and SS Commander-in-Chief of the proscribed terrorist groups ULFA, along with Abhijit Gogoi and Jahnu Boruah. All three were charged under various sections of BNS, UA (P) Act and The Explosives Substance Act, news agency PTI reported. The trio were found linked with the IED planted by the terror outfit at Dispur Last Gate, Guwahati, Assam, as part of the ULFA (I) conspiracy to trigger multiple IED blasts across Assam, including at Dispur Last Gate, to disrupt the I-Day celebrations last year. NIA, which took over the case in September 2024, found during investigation that the IEDs had been planted to cause death/injuries to persons and/or loss/damage/destruction to property, with the intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security and sovereignty of India, and to strike terror among the people of the country. (This is a developing story. Please check back for updates)
News18
8 hours ago
- News18
Karnataka HC Seeks Govt's Reply On Kannada Mandate In CBSE, ICSE Schools
Parents and teachers allege that the state government is indirectly pressuring CBSE and CISCE schools to adopt Kannada by using regulatory mechanisms like NOCs. The Karnataka High Court has instructed the state government to explain within three months why Kannada should be a mandatory subject in CBSE and CISCE-affiliated schools. This directive was issued during the hearing of a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging this decision. The division bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice V. Kameswara Rao and Justice C.M. Joshi, expressed dissatisfaction with the government for not responding so far. The court remarked that the government has been inactive for two years. If this continues, the court may consider granting interim relief to the petitioners. The petition disputes the mandate for compulsory teaching of Kannada as a first or second language in CBSE and CISCE schools, as stipulated by the Karnataka Language Teaching Act, 2015, and its related rules established in 2017. The petitioners argued that this decision infringes on the freedom of language choice, potentially impacting students' academic freedom and teachers' employment. According to the rules, schools failing to comply risk having their NOC (No Objection Certificate) revoked, jeopardizing their recognition. The petitioners contend that students should have the right to choose their first, second, and third languages. They believe that enforcing Kannada could affect students' future prospects, especially those preparing for competitive exams or studying in other states. The petition also highlights concerns that teachers unable to teach Kannada may face employment challenges due to the new language policy. Parents and teachers allege that the state government is indirectly pressuring CBSE and CISCE schools to adopt Kannada by using regulatory mechanisms like NOCs. They argue that this could set a dangerous precedent against academic freedom and parental choice. The court has given the state government three months to respond. The next hearing will occur only after this period. For now, the court has adjourned the case. view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
