X, formerly Twitter, has filed a petition in the Karnataka high court challenging the Indian government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, arguing that it not only sets up an illegal parallel content-blocking process but also violates the Supreme Court’s 2015 Shreya Singhal judgment, which declared that content could only be blocked through a competent court order or under Section 69A’s structured process.
As per Section 79(3)(b), an intermediary can lose its safe harbour — which protects platforms from liability for third-party content — if it fails to remove or disable access to content upon being informed by the “appropriate” government or its agency. X argues that this provision does not grant the government blocking powers. The company contends that government authorities are misusing this section to bypass the safeguards of Section 69A and arbitrarily censor online content.
Apart from seeking protection from government action on blocking orders violative of Section 69A, X also wants protection for not onboarding an employee on Sahyog, a portal created by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) to “streamline” Section 79(3)(b) orders. X has called this portal a “Censorship Portal”.
X has argued that nothing in the law allows the creation of Sahyog or create a statutory requirement to appoint a nodal officer for such a portal. It said that it had already appointed the requisite officers as per Information Technology (Intermediate Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
At a hearing on March 17, justice M Nagaprasanna allowed X to approach the court if the government took any “precipitative action” against it. The government, during the hearing, maintained that no punitive measures had yet been taken against X for refusing to join the Sahyog portal.
The company argued that orders issued under this framework pose a broader threat which would lead to “significant and unrestrained censorship of information in India”.
Multiple Union ministries, including home, finance, railways and defense, have issued notifications designating nodal officers under Section 79(3)(b) to demand content removals. These notifications, X argued, are unconstitutional and must be quashed. According to X, this system renders Section 69A “otiose, ineffective, and meaningless,” as Shreya Singhal upheld the provision only because it was narrowly defined and had built-in procedural safeguards. By contrast, Section 79(3)(b) does not outline any procedure or review mechanism, allowing government and law enforcement agencies agencies to block content arbitrarily.
Unlike Section 69A, which restricts blocking to specific grounds such as national security and public order and entails a detailed review, Section 79(3)(b) lacks clear limitations, including on what is an “unlawful act”.
X also claims that the ministry of electronics and information technology (MeitY), which oversees the IT Act, is unlawfully facilitating this parallel system. Citing an office memorandum dated October 31, 2023, the company alleges that MeitY encouraged all central ministries, state governments and police chiefs to designate nodal officers who could issue takedown notices. This directive, X argues, improperly delegates powers that MeitY itself lacks. As evidence, X annexed three blocking orders issued by the Railways in February 2024. All three orders were also sent to MeitY.
X argued that the government’s actions are directly harming its ability to operate in India. The company maintains that arbitrary blocking orders threaten its business model, which relies on users sharing lawful information.
This legal battle is not X’s first confrontation with India’s content-blocking regime. In 2022, the company challenged the legality of orders under Section 69A that sought to block entire accounts rather than specific tweets, calling it a disproportionate measure. However, the Karnataka high court ruled in 2023 that the government had the authority to block entire accounts and imposed an exemplary cost of ₹50 lakh on X.
Now, in its latest challenge, X is arguing that the government’s misuse of Section 79(3)(b) is a blatant attempt to undermine established legal procedures and create a censorship system without checks and balances.
In an unrelated case in Delhi HC that now also deals with how social media companies process requests for information from police, X submitted that it cannot be compelled to join Sahyog. In a hearing on March 18, Justice Pratibha M. Singh orally remarked that X’s arguments against the portal will be heard towards the end of April.