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

The Karnataka High Court today rejected a petition by Elon Musk's X Corp, which challenged the authority of government officials to issue information blocking orders.

"Social media needs to be regulated, and its regulation is a must, more so in cases of offences against women, in particular, failing which the right to dignity, as ordained in the Constitution of a citizen gets railroaded," the court maintained.

X Corp, formerly known as Twitter, had approached the Karnataka High Court seeking a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, did not empower government officers to issue blocking orders. Instead, the company argued that only Section 69A of the Act, read with the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, provided the due legal framework for such action.

The platform also sought directions restraining various ministries from taking coercive action against it on the basis of blocking orders issued under Section 79(3)(b). Additionally, X asked for interim protection from being compelled to join the government's "Sahyog" portal.

The petition was heard over several months, with arguments concluding in late July. The court had reserved its order on July 29 before pronouncing it today.

Justice M Nagaprasanna, while dictating the order, emphasised that the regulation of communication has always been a matter of governance, regardless of the medium.

"Information and communication, its spread or speed has never been left unchecked and unregulated. It has always been a subject matter of regulation," the court noted. 

Justice Nagaprasanna cautioned against importing American judicial reasoning into the Indian context.

"The judicial thought process has undergone a complete change in the realm of free speech, even in the United States. American judicial thought cannot be transplanted into the soil of Indian constitutional thought," he remarked.

The Centre had opposed X's plea, contending that unlawful or illegal content could not claim the same degree of constitutional protection as legitimate speech.