The Union government has told the Karnataka high court that social media platform X (formerly Twitter) has no legal right to challenge the removal of user content, warning that any resistance to takedown orders could result in the platform losing its immunity from legal consequences under Indian law.
In a strongly worded submission, the Centre asserted that under the Indian legal framework, intermediaries like X do not have the right to solicit hosting or oppose the removal of content before a court of law and that any resistance from X to comply with such orders would result in the withdrawal of the “safe harbour” protection that shields it from legal liability for content posted by its users.
Also Read: X ownership changes from Elon Musk to xAI, exhibits financial creativity
“The intermediary as per the scheme of the Information Technology (IT) Act has no right or locus, at all, to take up the case of its users against any orders passed by the competent authority under section 79 of the Act or else it loses its safe harbour protection,” it said in its affidavit.
It also accused X of adopting “double standards” by choosing to legally contest content takedown requests in India by government authorities, while simultaneously removing content voluntarily under its own internal policies.
Also Read: In Karnataka HC, Centre defends use of IT Act for takedown notices
The government’s caution comes in response to a petition by X challenging the Indian government’s invocation of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000. The company has argued that the provision creates an illegal parallel content-blocking process and is in violation of the Supreme Court’s 2015 judgment in the Shreya Singhal case, which held that content can only be blocked through a court order or under the structured process outlined in Section 69A of the IT Act.
Also Read: Grok answers user queries on xAI: ‘Musk plays 4D chess, rest stuck on checkers’
Represented trough solicitor general Tushar Mehta, the Centre however contended in its response submitted on Thursday that X, being a foreign entity, does not possess fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution and cannot claim protections under rights to free speech. “The only statutory right it has is conferred under Section 79 of the IT Act (safe harbour), which does not empower it to solicit hosting or defend removal of the information & data of third parties hosted on its platform,” said the Centre.
It further emphasised that intermediaries in India are bound to comply with takedown notices within 36 hours to retain their “safe harbour” protections after they receive “actual knowledge” through a court order or a notification from the “Appropriate Government or its agency”.
“If the intermediary seeks to claim any safe harbour protection in the future, it must act swiftly to remove or disable access to the prohibited content within 36 hours of receiving the court order or notification,” it stated.
The government contended added that “safe harbour” is not an absolute right and is conditional across jurisdictions worldwide. “Safe harbour provisions exist to shield intermediaries from liability for unlawful content posted by their users, but this protection is predicated on the condition that intermediaries act as neutral conduits without actively engaging in or modifying the content,” it emphasised.
The Centre further accused X of hypocrisy, highlighting that the platform regularly removes content flagged by users or victims under its internal policies but resists takedown requests from the Indian government.
“The petitioner has put in place a mechanism for removal or disabling of access to any such information on a voluntary basis when reported by the user or a victim, as is evident from its Transparency Reports (on user grievances and proactive monitoring),” the response stated. “However, the objection of the petitioner to remove or disable access to any such information flagged or notified by the appropriate government agencies/nodal officers is not understandable and tantamount to double standards,” it contended.
The government underscored that intermediaries themselves acknowledge that a significant volume of harmful or unlawful content remains on their platforms despite voluntary takedown mechanisms. The response noted that the government has a “bounden responsibility and duty” to ensure the safety of its citizens from such content.
It pointed out that apart from the grounds specified under Section 69A (issuance of blocking orders by the Centre) of the IT Act—such as threats to national security, public order, and sovereignty of India—there are several categories of harmful content that require regulation. These include child sexual exploitation material (CSEM), self-harm content, impersonation, fake news, non-consensual intimate images, cyberbullying, phishing, doxxing, and illicit trade activities, among others.
The Centre argued that government agencies are responsible for identifying such content and ensuring its removal. “If such information is identified by the authorised agency of the appropriate government or brought to notice by a user or victim, then such an agency will be responsible for verifying the unlawfulness of such information and notifying the concerned intermediary for removal or disabling access,” the response stated.
In its petition, X has also requested protection for not using Sahyog, an I4C portal for managing Section 79(3)(b) orders that X called a “censorship portal.” The company asserted that no law authorised Sahyog’s creation or mandated a nodal officer for it.
In its response, the government deprecated X’s usage of “censorship portal”. “By raising a groundless concern of censorship, the petitioner is attempting conflate its position with that of a user who posts content on its platform, which it is not. It is submitted that the use of the said terminology by a worldwide portal like ‘X’ is unfortunate and condemnable,” it said.