Latest news with #ShreyaSinghal
Hindustan Times
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Govt misusing IT laws, X corp tells Karnataka high court
X Corp on Friday told the Karnataka high court that while it was not opposed to regulation, all restrictions on digital speech must strictly conform to existing law. Objecting to the Union government's directive mandating social media platforms to join the Sahyog Portal -- a centralised system for content takedown requests, the platform argued that the portal enables arbitrary censorship by executive authorities, in violation of constitutional safeguards and Supreme Court precedents. This illustration photograph shows the logo of social network X (formerly Twitter) displayed on a smartphone.(AFP/File) Senior advocate KG Raghavan, who appeared for X Corp, told a bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna that presently, the central administrative authorities or the several nodal officers empowered by the Sahyog Portal to issue take down notices to social media intermediaries, were 'misusing' the takedown regime under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act that outlines conditions under which intermediaries can lose their safe harbour protection. These officers, Raghavan argued, were performing 'judicial functions,' leading to 'arbitrary and opaque censorship' of online content. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, Raghavan said Section 69A of the IT Act, which permits content takedowns, was upheld by the Apex Court because it provides procedural safeguards, including a defined structure and the involvement of a nodal officer. However, Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules that Sahyog portal relies upon for issuing take down orders, lack such safeguards. Raghavan also argued that Rule 3(1)(d) gives the government a 'backdoor mechanism to control online content,' avoiding the Shreya Singhal mandated process under Section 3(1)(d) undermines the constitutional safeguards that the Supreme Court laid down by shifting the burden of censorship to social media platforms and enabling takedown orders by countless officers of the state issued merely on their respective discretion. 'Today, virtually any officer, from the Delhi Metro to any department, can interpret any law in the country and decide that a social media post is unlawful. This is a judicial function being carried out by executive authorities,' Raghavan argued. 'A thousand administrative officers are now empowered to interpret law, apply facts, and order takedowns. This is constitutionally impermissible,' he said. When the court asked if acts or online content deemed 'unlawful' under the law were not 'already enumerated,' and whether officers were merely 'determining if a post violated these laws,' Raghavan insisted that such determinations must not be made by executive officials without a structured procedure or review mechanism as prescribed under Section 69A. Section 69A of the IT Act provides for blocking or taking down online content only through a legal process with safeguards such as prior notices, an explanation or reasoning for why such content must be taken down, a hearing, and review etc., X Corp has argued that Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, however, requires intermediaries to take down a wide range of content without any such procedural protections, based on vague criteria and even user complaints. The company has maintained that Rule 3(1)(d) effectively bypasses 69A and violates the Supreme Court's ruling, while also making the intermediaries vulnerable to losing their safe harbour protection to under the Act. The safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act shields online platforms from liability for user generated content, as long as they act as neutral intermediaries and comply with takedown orders. Raghavan further said that empowering executive officials to issue take down notices without any procedural safeguards will have a 'chilling effect' on free speech. 'A comment saying the Delhi Metro is not running on time can be taken down because the metro authorities might feel that it sends the wrong signal,' Raghavan said. 'We are a responsible platform with user agreements and moderation mechanisms. We are not against regulation, but regulation must be in accordance with law,' he said. Raghavan also argued that the Sahyog Portal had no statutory backing since it was created through 'a mere letter, with no notification or executive order.' 'The architecture of Indian law making requires statutory support for such mechanisms,' Raghavan said. Justice Nagaprasanna asked whether the portal was simply for implementation purposes, to which Raghavan said that irrespective of what the Portal intended to do, it could not have been constituted through administrative communication alone. The court will now hear the union government's arguments through Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, on July 17.
Time of India
11-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Govt bypassing safeguards under law to order content takedown: X tells HC
Microblogging platform X Corp said on Friday that the Indian government is using a 'smart and ingenious workaround' to avoid the legal safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in a 2015 order with respect to take down of content or blocking of social media would the Indian government follow the lengthy and complicated procedure of safeguards provided under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act when an easy path via Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules and the Sahyog Portal is available to issue content takedown notices, the company asked the Karnataka High Musk-owned X, formerly Twitter, has petitioned the high court challenging the way the government issues orders to take down union home ministry had developed the Sahyog portal to automate the process of sending notices to counsel KG Raghavan, appearing for X, said Rule 3(1)(d) effectively seeks to undo the apex court ruling in the 2015 Shreya Singhal case and must be struck down, because it undermines the safeguards provided in Section 69A of the IT Section 69A, content can be blocked only in the interest of sovereignty, security, public order, or similar grounds listed in Article 19(2) that deals with the fundamental right to freedom of speech expression. The process requires an inter-ministerial committee to review the request and provides affected parties an opportunity to be heard (except in emergencies), and records written reasons for the blocking noted that both Section 69A and Section 79 are administered by the ministry of electronics and information technology (MeitY), but only Section 69A includes procedural safeguards like an inter-ministerial committee, written orders and judicial of following that, he said, MeitY has chosen the easy path, using Rule 3(1)(d) to issue notices without statutory also questioned the legal validity of the Sahyog Portal. According to Raghavan, there is no notification or statutory provision authorising the portal's creation, yet intermediaries are being told to onboard via letters from government next hearing is on July 17 when the government will present its industry body Digipub, which represents 92 digital-first publishers and journalists, also made submissions supporting X's argued that the distinction between online and offline media cannot be used as a blanket justification to sidestep to it, the government has turned Section 79 (3)(b) of the IT Act, an exemption provision, into an empowerment provision, which neither the language of the Act nor the Rules support.'The creation of such a regime is, in itself, arbitrary,' Digipub submitted.
Indian Express
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
Row over Reuters accounts points to unreasonable restrictions on free speech
On Saturday night, X (formerly Twitter) blocked the two official accounts of a global news wire service in India 'in response to a legal demand'. Soon after, a Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology spokesperson insisted that the government had made no such demand, it had reportedly asked for some posts of Reuters to be taken down on May 7 and 8, during Operation Sindoor. The accounts were restored shortly after. X, however, insists that it was acting on a notice from the Centre, and Reuters handles were among the over 2,000 that it was instructed to block. The quarrel over who was responsible — the Government of India or the social media platform — for blocking Reuters accounts flags larger issues, not least the ease and frequency with which takedowns are being ordered. They raise questions about unreasonable restrictions on free speech and whether many such orders violate Supreme Court judgments, including in the landmark Shreya Singhal case. There are occasions when posts and even accounts may be legitimately taken down. False information and images that incite violence, particularly when they risk making a precarious situation, such as a communal riot, worse. There can be circumstances when national security is at stake that may require intervention by the government on what is posted online. Examples of misinformation and disinformation in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack underscore that in every conflict, now, the digital sphere is a front. Having said that, takedown orders must be the exception and not the rule. And they must conform to the letter and spirit of Article 19. Section 73(b) of the IT Act is particularly problematic — central and state governments of various political hues have issued takedown orders under this provision. Whether or not it constitutes a violation of the Shreya Singhal judgment — which struck down Section 66A as unconstitutional — is currently being heard by the Karnataka High Court. However, by any reckoning, blanket orders that seek to censor thousands of accounts at a time constitute state overreach. Governments must realise that 'reasonable restrictions' on free speech must be infrequent, justifiable and narrowly defined. Blanket orders are blunt instruments — they will likely do little to curb bad actors, who have various means at their disposal, such as dummy accounts, bots, etc., while sending a chilling signal vis-à-vis a fundamental right in a constitutional democracy. Episodes such as the controversy over the Reuters handles dent the government's credibility. Going forward, it should not issue orders that are so broad, and target so many accounts that it invites distrust about its intentions on free speech.
Indian Express
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
‘Govt officers not following uniform standards in takedown orders': X Corp in Karnataka High Court
X Corp informed the Karnataka High Court Tuesday that there is a lack of uniformity in the takedown orders issued to it by government officials against social media posts. A bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was hearing the case challenging the alleged subjective blocking orders on X issued by Central Government officers across the country using Section 79 (3)(B) of the Information Technology (IT) Act. The company argued that takedowns could only be done through the mechanism laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shreya Singhal, ie, through Section 69(A) of the Information Technology Act, and not 79 (3)(B). Intermediaries like X are usually provided 'safe harbour' protections for content posted by others on their platform. Section 79(3)(B) provides for the removal of the protection of intermediaries such as X, when they do not remove links etc connected to unlawful acts after receiving a government notification. On the other hand, Section 69(A) lays out the grounds and power for a direction to be issued for any agency or intermediary to block certain content. X Corp, represented by senior advocate K G Raghavan, stated that 69A was upheld by the Supreme Court as there are so many safeguards in the rules. '69A was upheld while 66A was struck down….to what extent has Section 79(3)(b) been read down? It is our submission that it has been read down because the SC says it has to be read along with 69A…..the same safeguards should be contained in 79,' Raghavan submitted. Raghavan proceeded to go through the case of Shreya Singhal in detail concerning those sections dealing with these two provisions. He also raised the question of Rule 3(1)(d), which refers to Section 79(3)(B). This rule prohibits intermediaries from storing or publishing anything prohibited under any law, with the notification regarding this to be issued by an authorised agency notified by the government. He stated, 'These notifications are issued without regard to the scheme of 69 A….' Raghavan also submitted, among other arguments, that 'Each officer has their sense of what is lawful and unlawful. This is dependent upon what is good in one state; the other state may not think it requires to be notified. How does this work – under the whims and fancies of one person? Nothing is centralised there is no coordination. This is a serious flaw in 3 (1) (D).' The arguments for X Corp will continue in the High Court on Friday. On July 3, 2025, the Indian government ordered X to block 2,355 accounts in India, including international news outlets like @Reuters and @ReutersWorld, under Section 69A of the IT Act. Non-compliance risked criminal liability. The Ministry of Electronics and Information… — Global Government Affairs (@GlobalAffairs) July 8, 2025 Meanwhile, X Corp on Tuesday said in a statement that it had been ordered under Section 69(A) to block 2,355 accounts, including international news outlets like Reuters and Reuters World, with these two later being unblocked by the government. It advised affected users to pursue legal remedies in the courts.
NDTV
08-07-2025
- Business
- NDTV
"Deeply Concerned": Elon Musk's X Alleges Press Censorship In India
New Delhi: Elon Musk's microblogging giant X has criticised the Indian government over what it called "press censorship", following the blocking of the accounts of international news agency Reuters in India. The government had, however, denied any role in the news agency's social media account going offline in India. "There is no requirement from the government of India to withhold Reuters, and we are continuously working with X to resolve the problem," a government spokesperson said on Sunday. X, however, said the government on July 3 ordered it to block 2,355 accounts in India, including Reuters, "within one hour without providing justification." X said they had no choice but to obey the order as they could be penalised if they didn't. The company asked those whose accounts have been blocked in India to look for a remedy from courts. "On July 3, 2025, the Indian government ordered X to block 2,355 accounts in India, including international news outlets like Reuters and Reuters World, under Section 69A of the IT Act. Non-compliance risked criminal liability," X's Global Government Affairs team said in a post today. "The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology demanded immediate action - within one hour - without providing justification, and required the accounts to remain blocked until further notice. After public outcry, the government requested X to unblock Reuters and Reuters World," it said. "We are deeply concerned about ongoing press censorship in India due to these blocking orders. X is exploring all legal options available. Unlike users located in India, X is restricted by Indian law in its ability to bring legal challenges against these executive orders. We urge affected users to pursue legal remedies through the courts," said the company earlier known as Twitter before Elon Musk bought it. X has frequently criticised the government over orders on blocking accounts. In March, the social media giant sued the Centre, accusing it of misusing information technology laws to create an "unlawful blocking regime". In a petition filed in the Karnataka High Court, X cited the Supreme Court verdict in the 2015 Shreya Singhal case, which struck down Section 66A of the IT Act that criminalised sending offensive messages on communication devices. X's petition also said the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology told central ministries and state governments and "effectively tens of thousands of local police officers" that they were authorised to issue information blocking orders under Section 79(3)(b), outside the Section 69A process. Under Section 79(3)(b), an IT intermediary [such as X] loses immunity from liability if it does not "expeditiously remove or disable access" to material flagged by a government agency as linked to an unlawful act. X's petition alleged the use of Section 79(3)(b) circumvented Section 69A, which empowered the government to issue directions to block public access to information, but added safeguards.
