X Vs Govt: Karnataka HC Adjourns Hearing Till July 1

The Karnataka High Court has reportedly adjourned the final hearing in a petition filed by social media platform X, challenging the Centre’s use of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act to block content.

The matter has now been re-listed for further hearing on July 1. 

As per Economic Times, the social media platform’s counsel, KG Raghavan, sought the adjournment on the grounds that the petitioner wanted to file applications seeking amendments to the petition.

During the hearing, Raghavan reportedly asked for a hearing date after the summer vacation of the court. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing the government, did not object to the adjournment and proposed July 1 as the next date for the hearing.

The court agreed to the demand, but directed all applications, seeking amendments to the petition, to be filed in the next two weeks, with an advance copy served to the government. The HC also granted the government a time of three weeks thereafter to file its response. 

Further, X’s counsel also informed the HC that the social media platform intends to file a rejoinder to the statement of objections. In response, the court directed the company to file the rejoinder in the next three weeks.

During the case’s last hearing on April 3, the HC reportedly refused to grant interim relief to the social media platform. Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that there is no reason for X to be apprehensive of any coercive action by the government, adding that the platform is free to approach the HC in case of any coercive action.

At the heart of the matter is X’s petition, filed last month, which challenges the government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act to take down and block content. The plea argues that the provision contradicts Supreme Court’s judgement in the Shreya Singhal case, which permits blocking of content only via Section 69A of the IT Act or a court order.

Calling the government’s Sahyog portal a “Censorship Portal”, X during a previous hearing contended that the law doesn’t mandate the creation of the portal or a statutory requirement to appoint a nodal officer for such a portal.

It is pertinent to note that Sahyog portal has been created by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) to “streamline” Section 79(3)(b) orders.

Responding to the charges, the Centre termed the characterisation of the portal as a “censorship” tool by X as “unfortunate” and “condemnable.” In its submission, the government contended that X has misinterpreted the provisions of the IT Act, particularly Sections 69A and 79(3)(b). 

The Centre argued that while Section 69A “explicitly” allows authorities to issue blocking orders under specific conditions and provides multiple safeguards for restriction of online content, Section 79(3)(b) only required digital intermediaries to fulfill their obligations upon receiving notices from agencies.

The government also underlined that while Section 69A entailed legal consequences for non-compliance with blocking orders, Section 79 determined the “conditions under which intermediaries can claim safe harbour protection”.