X Challenges Indian Court Ruling on Social Media Regulation: Legal Battle Over Freedom of Expression

Elon Musk acquired X, formerly known as Twitter, in 2022.

New Delhi:

X has expressed being "deeply concerned" regarding the Karnataka High Court's recent ruling that stated 'social media companies cannot be allowed to work unregulated in India'.

In a comprehensive statement released on the platform today, Elon Musk's company claimed the High Court decision enables "arbitrary takedown orders through a secretive online portal called 'Sahyog'" - referring to a federal agency responsible for establishing an 'effective framework and ecosystem' for addressing cybercrime in India.

"This new regime has no basis in law... it circumvents Section 69A of the Information Technology Act... violates Supreme Court rulings... and infringes Indian citizens' constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression."

'Sahyog' allows officers to demand content removal based merely on allegations of 'illegality', without judicial oversight or proper procedures, and threatens platforms with criminal consequences for non-compliance," stated the company through its Global Government Affairs account.

While emphasizing that X "respects and complies with Indian law," the company highlighted that the High Court ruling "fails to address the core constitutional issues... and contradicts the Bombay High Court's recent decision that a similar system was unconstitutional".

The company also noted that being incorporated in the United States does not invalidate its right to raise these concerns, pointing out that it 'contributes significantly to public discourse in India'. "We will appeal this order to defend free expression," X declared.

The Karnataka High Court had dismissed X's petition challenging government officials' authority to issue information blocking orders.

Justice M Nagaprasanna, while delivering the ruling, emphasized that communication regulation has consistently been a matter of governance, regardless of the medium used.

The court maintained that "Social media needs to be regulated... particularly in cases of offences against women, failing which the right to dignity guaranteed by the Constitution gets undermined."

The Indian government opposed X's petition, arguing that unlawful or illegal content could not claim the same level of constitutional protection as legitimate speech.