K’taka HC Refuses To Grant Interim Relief To Social Media Giant X

SUMMARY

During the hearing, X’s counsel KG Raghavan argued that there are legal flaws to the blocking mechanism established by the Centre through the Sahyog portal

It is pertinent to note that X, in its petition, called the government’s Sahyog portal a “censorship” tool

The submission came as HC was hearing a petition filed by X challenging the government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act to block content

The Karnataka High Court (HC) reportedly refused to grant interim relief to social media platform X today in connection with a plea challenging the Centre’s use of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act to block content.

As per Bar and Bench, Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that there is no reason for X to be apprehensive of any coercive action by the government. Noting that the social media platform is free to approach the HC in case of any coercive action, Justice Nagaprasanna posted the matter for final hearing on April 24.

During the hearing, X’s counsel KG Raghavan argued that there are legal flaws to the blocking mechanism established by the Centre through the Sahyog portal. He contended that the takedown orders issued through the portal do not adhere to the safeguards mandated by Section 69A of the IT Act.

Flagging that Sahyog portal‘s content blocking mechanism is rooted in Section 79(3)(b) of the Act, Raghavan questioned if the safeguard under Section 69A could be “given a go-by” while issuing blocking orders under Section 79(3)(b).

It is pertinent to note that X, in its petition, called the government’s Sahyog portal a “censorship” tool.

Noting that the only reason Section 69A was upheld by the Supreme Court (SC) in the Shreya Singhal case was due to the provision’s inbuilt safeguards, X’s counsel emphasised that even ex-parte blocking orders have to be justified in post-decisional hearings under Section 69A.

As such, the social media giant sought the HC’s intervention to stop the government from taking any coercive action against X for not complying with blocking orders under Section 79(3)(b).

“… The concern of the Union of India is legitimate – no one can say I won’t comply with the laws of this country. If you want to do business in this country, you have to comply. We are all on the same side, that nothing can be done which adversely affects the country… All we are saying is – the law is completely codified in Section 69A of the IT Act,” Raghavan reportedly argued.

Noting that both Section 79(3) and Section 69A have to be read together, X’s counsel also contended that content blocking orders cannot be issued by the government by invoking Section 79(3)(b) as a standalone provision.

Under Section 79(3), a digital intermediary can lose its safe harbour protection if the platform fails to take action against unlawful content posted by its users, despite being informed of the same.

What Is The Govt’s Stand?

At the previous hearing last month, the Centre argued that X misinterpreted the provisions of the IT Act, particularly Sections 69A and 79(3)(b).

The government said that while Section 69A “explicitly” allows authorities to issue blocking orders, Section 79(3)(b) only requires digital intermediaries to fulfill their obligations upon receiving notices from agencies.

The government also contended before the HC that while Section 69A entails legal consequences for non-compliance with blocking orders, Section 79(3)(b) determines the “conditions under which intermediaries can claim safe harbour protection”.