X Corp, the microblogging platform formerly known as Twitter, has challenged the Indian government’s decision not to disclose the orders passed by a review committee that upheld the blocking of several tweets on its platform. The company has filed an appeal before the Karnataka High Court, seeking to quash a single-judge order that imposed a ₹50 lakh fine on it for not complying with the government’s blocking orders.
Background of the case
The case dates back to 2021, when the government issued several orders under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act and Rules, directing X Corp to disable access to certain accounts and tweets that were allegedly in violation of the law or posed a threat to public order. X Corp challenged some of these orders before the Karnataka High Court, arguing that they were arbitrary, illegal and violated the right to freedom of expression.
In June 2023, Justice G. Narendar dismissed X Corp’s challenge and imposed a cost of ₹50 lakh on it, holding that it had failed to ensure timely compliance with the government’s blocking orders. The judge also observed that X Corp had not shown any material to prove that the blocked content was protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution or that the government’s orders were unreasonable or disproportionate.
X Corp’s appeal
X Corp has now appealed against the single-judge order, contending that it is erroneous and unsustainable in law. The company has raised several grounds in its appeal, including:
- The government has not disclosed the orders passed by the review committee that upheld the blocking of several tweets on X Corp’s platform. The company has argued that these orders are not “top secret” as claimed by the government and that it has a right to know the reasons for the blocking of content on its platform.
- The single-judge order has failed to appreciate that X Corp is an intermediary under the IT Act and Rules and that it is not liable for any third-party content posted on its platform. The company has also claimed that it has complied with the government’s blocking orders within a reasonable time and that it has a grievance redressal mechanism in place for users who are aggrieved by the blocking of content.
- The single-judge order has erroneously held that X Corp has not shown any material to prove that the blocked content was protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution or that the government’s orders were unreasonable or disproportionate. The company has contended that it is not required to produce any such material as it is challenging the legality and validity of the government’s orders and not their merits.
- The single-judge order has wrongly imposed a cost of ₹50 lakh on X Corp, which is excessive and unjustified. The company has submitted that it has not acted in a mala fide or frivolous manner and that it has raised bona fide issues of public importance in its challenge to the government’s blocking orders.
Significance of the case
The case is significant as it involves the question of balancing the right to freedom of expression online with the state’s power to regulate online content in the interest of national security and public order. It also raises issues of transparency and accountability in the exercise of such power by the government and its review committee.
The case also reflects the growing tensions between X Corp and the Indian government over various regulatory matters, such as compliance with new IT rules, appointment of officers, removal of manipulated media tags, etc. X Corp, which was acquired by billionaire Elon Musk in 2022, is also pursuing other business ventures in India, such as setting up an electric vehicle factory and launching a satellite broadband service.