‘Unregulated speech is lawlessness’: Karnataka HC rejects X Corp’s censorship plea
Follow TNM’s WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition filed by Elon Musk-owned X Corp challenging the Indian government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) (liability of intermediaries) of the Information Technology Act and the Sahyog Portal for content takedown orders. The Court upheld the Union government’s authority to regulate online platforms, declaring that unchecked speech cannot masquerade as liberty.
Section 79(3) of the IT Act says that social media platforms lose their legal protection if they don’t take down unlawful content after being told to do so by a court or the government.
Justice M Nagaprasanna, delivering the verdict, observed, “Social media, as modern amphitheater of ideas, cannot be left in a state of anarchic freedom. Regulation of information in this domain is neither novel nor unique. United States of America regulates it. Every sovereign nation regulates it. And India’s resolve likewise, cannot by any stretch of Constitutional imagination, be branded as unlawful.”
He further added, “Unregulated speech under the guise of liberty becomes a license to lawlessness. Regulated speech, by contrast, preserves both liberty and order, the twin pillars upon which democracy must stand.”
The Court rejected X Corp’s plea that Section 79(3)(b) does not empower the government to issue takedown directions. On the Sahyog Portal, Justice Nagaprasanna noted, “In truth it’s an instrument of public good, conceived under the authority of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and Rule 3(b) of the 2021 Rules. It stands as a beacon of cooperation between citizen and the intermediary— a mechanism through which the State endeavors to combat the growing menace of cyber crime.”
Emphasising the need to balance liberty with accountability, the Court said, “The content on social media must be regulated and its regulation is a must, more so in cases of offences against women in particular, failing which right to dignity as ordained in the Constitution gets railroaded.”
The bench dismissed X Corp’s plea that blocking orders could only be issued under Section 69A of the IT Act, as recognised by the Supreme Court. It clarified that the 2021 IT Rules had replaced the 2011 framework, rendering earlier precedents limited in scope.
X Corp had approached the court earlier this year, terming the Sahyog Portal a “censorship system” that bypasses procedural safeguards. It argued that Section 79(3)(b), which deals with intermediary liability, cannot be used to issue blocking orders. Senior advocate KG Raghavan appeared for X, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Arvind Kamath represented the Union government.
The Union, however, countered that safe harbour protections are conditional and intermediaries cannot claim a “chilling effect” on behalf of users while refusing to comply with lawful directives. It stressed that unlawful content cannot enjoy the same protections as free speech.
(With IANS inputs)