High Court Emphasizes Accountability
Presiding over the case, Justice M. Nagaprasanna stated that social media, as a modern amphitheatre of ideas, cannot exist in a state of anarchic freedom. He observed, “Regulation of information in this domain is neither novel nor unique. The United States regulates it. Every sovereign nation regulates it. India likewise cannot be branded unlawful for doing so.”
The Court highlighted the necessity of regulation, particularly in cases involving offences against women, asserting that unregulated content could undermine citizens’ right to dignity. “Order is the architecture of our democracy. Every platform operating in India must recognize that liberty is yoked with responsibility, and access carries with it accountability,” the judgement read.
X Corp’s Challenges
X Corp had challenged the blocking orders, claiming that the Central and State authorities bypassed safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court. The company also opposed the government’s new Sahyog portal, which enables agencies from Union Ministries to local police stations to issue content removal requests using a standard template, calling it a “censorship portal.”
Furthermore, X Corp alleged that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) had issued sample “template blocking orders” under Section 79, which the company argued circumvented the apex court’s ruling allowing information blocking only under Section 69A of the IT Act.
Centre’s Stand
The Central government refuted X Corp’s claims, stating that the company was attempting to mislead the Court by suggesting that Section 79(3)(d) was being misused to issue unlawful blocking orders. The Centre clarified that Section 79 provides a framework in line with global best practices, balancing interests of content creators, intermediaries, recipients, and legitimate State concerns.
The government further asserted that communications issued under Section 79 are “content removal requests” or “takedown notices,” not formal blocking orders, and accused X Corp of using incorrect terminology to mislead the Court.
International Perspective
The Court also noted that X Corp complies with takedown orders in the United States, its country of origin, where violations carry criminal consequences. The judgement emphasized that India, as a sovereign nation, has the right to regulate digital content to safeguard public interest, prevent abuse, and maintain law and order.
Experts suggest that the ruling reinforces India’s approach to online accountability while balancing freedom of expression. Legal analysts also see this as a precedent-setting decision for future cases involving global social media platforms operating under Indian jurisdiction.
Implications for Social Media Platforms
Platforms like X Corp must now strictly comply with government-issued content removal requests, particularly in cases impacting citizen rights and public order. The judgement underlines that freedom online is inseparable from responsibility, and regulatory oversight is consistent with international norms.
While X Corp has the option to appeal, the High Court’s ruling clearly signals the judiciary’s commitment to upholding regulation and preventing misuse of social media platforms.
