X, formerly Twitter, appeals Karnataka court ruling on blocking orders: Sources

In 2022, Twitter, now X, had approached the Karnataka High Court seeking relief from a few blocking orders of the Indian government

Elon Musk-owned X, formerly Twitter, has appealed the High Court of Karnataka’s Rs 50 lakh penalty levied on the platform and its decision to dismiss a 2022 plea challenging a few blocking orders by the Indian government, people familiar with the filing said.

The appeal was filed in the high court, a copy of which has been viewed by Moneycontrol.

This would mark X’s first confrontation with the Indian government since Musk took ownership of the micro-blogging platform. Musk said earlier that India’s social media rules were “quite strict” and violating them may result in X’s employees getting arrested.

On June 30, the court dismissed X’s plea challenging some blocking orders issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Justice Krishna Dixit also imposed a penalty of Rs 50 lakh on the micro-blogging site and said a penalty of Rs 5,000 a day would be levied if the platform failed to pay the amount within 45 days.

The case was tracked by civil society and industry as blocking orders have been seen as a measure of censorship and restrictions on the freedom of expression. It also highlighted the platform’s prickly relationship with the government when it was owned by Jack Dorsey. Musk bought X in October 2022.

Why X is appealing

According to the people aware of the matter, the micro-blogging platform has appealed because it is of the opinion that the court was wrong in its assessment that X was not entitled to rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Article 21 states that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty, except in accordance with the procedure established by law.

Secondly, X was of the view that the court “ignored” MeitY’s failure to comply with Rule 14 of the Blocking Rules (Information Technology Rules, 2009).

Also read: All you need to know about Twitter's run-in with the Indian government

X’s appeal is also on the grounds that the court incorrectly interpreted Sec 69A (1) of the IT Act, the people said. The order violated the Supreme Court’s judgement in the Shreya Singhal case, they said.

Under Section 69A, the Central government can issue blocking orders to platforms in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of the country, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order and so on.

X is also contesting the court's decision to uphold the blocking of 29 accounts and adjudging that 33 URLs fell within the ambit of Section 69A(1), the people said. It will ask the court to set aside the Rs 50 lakh penalty, which X said is “unjustifiably imposed,” they added.

Moneycontrol reached out to X and MeitY with queries in this regard and is awaiting their responses.

What happened

The issue goes back to June 2022, when MeitY served X (then Twitter) notices alleging the platform was non-compliant with the IT Rules, 2021. According to reports, MeitY contended that the platform was not complying with its blocking orders in their entirety.

When X filed the petition in the court, it was revealed that the platform had not complied with some of the orders, as MeitY had not provided sufficient reasons under Sec 69A to block such content. X had said that in some cases, MeitY, had only cited the grounds without specifying how it violates the act.

Other run-ins 

2018: Pictures of Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey holding 'Smash Brahmanical Patriarchy' placard angered some users and the firm had to apologise.

November 2020: The Indian government issued a notice to X for showing Leh as part of Jammu and Kashmir instead of the Union Territory of Ladakh.

December 2020: X India tagged BJP IT cell head Amit Malviya's tweet on farmer protests as ‘manipulated media,’ which the government objected to.

May 2021: After the IT Rules, 2021, came into force in May, X sought more time to comply with the rules. In July, the Union government said X failed to comply with the rules.

June 2021: X was named in an FIR by Ghaziabad police for sharing a video of an assault on a 65-year-old that allegedly disrupted communal harmony.