"Must Regulate Content": High Court Rejects X's Challenge To Centre's Authority

The Karnataka High Court has denied a petition from Elon Musk's X Corp that challenged the government's authority to issue content blocking orders.

The court proceedings extended over several months, with final arguments completed in late July.

In its ruling from Bengaluru, the court emphasized that "Social media regulation is essential, particularly regarding offenses against women, as without it, the constitutional right to dignity becomes compromised."

X Corp (formerly Twitter) had petitioned the Karnataka High Court seeking a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, did not authorize government officials to issue blocking orders. The platform contended that only Section 69A of the Act, in conjunction with the Information Technology Rules of 2009, provided the appropriate legal framework for such actions.

The social media company also requested protection from potential coercive measures by various ministries based on blocking orders issued under Section 79(3)(b). Furthermore, X sought interim relief from being required to join the government's "Sahyog" portal.

After extensive hearings spanning several months, the court reserved its judgment on July 29 before announcing its decision today.

Justice M Nagaprasanna, while delivering the verdict, highlighted that regulation of communication has consistently been a governance matter, irrespective of the medium used.

"Information and communication, including its dissemination and velocity, has never been permitted to operate without oversight and regulation. It has consistently been subject to regulatory frameworks," the court stated.

Justice Nagaprasanna also warned against applying American judicial principles to Indian cases.

"The judicial perspective on free speech has undergone significant transformation, even in the United States. American judicial reasoning cannot be directly applied within the framework of Indian constitutional principles," the justice observed.

The Central Government had opposed X's petition, arguing that unlawful content should not receive the same constitutional protections afforded to legitimate speech.