MeitY has 'chosen easy' path to pass content takedown orders: X Corp in Karnataka High Court

.

X Corp told the Karnataka High Court on July 11 that the Indian government is using a “smart and ingenious” workaround to avoid the legal safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v Union of India, by leaning on Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules and the Sahyog Portal to issue content takedown notices.

Senior advocate KG Raghavan, appearing for X Corp, said that Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, effectively “seeks to undo Shreya Singhal” and “must be struck down”, because it undermines the safeguards provided Sec 69A of the IT Act.

Under this provision, content can be blocked only in the interest of sovereignty, security, public order, or similar grounds listed in Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The process requires an inter-ministerial committee to review the request, and also provides affected parties an opportunity to be heard (except in emergencies), and records written reasons for the blocking order.

Raghavan noted that both Section 69A and Section 79 are administered by Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) , but only 69A includes procedural safeguards like an inter-ministerial committee, written orders, and judicial review.

Instead, he said, the Ministry has chosen “the easy path,” using Rule 3(1)(d) to issue notices without statutory backing.

“If I am administering the same provision, why should I go through the hard path of Section 69A?” Raghavan asked the court.

He also questioned the legal validity of the Sahyog Portal. According to Raghavan, there is “no notification” or statutory provision authorising the portal’s creation, yet intermediaries are being told to onboard via letters from government agencies.

“Can they just issue a letter?” Raghavan asked. “If you want to create a portal, then that provision should be there in the statute.”

Digipub joins in, flags impact on online media

Media industry body Digipub, which represents 98 digital-first publishers and journalists, also made submissions supporting X Corp’s petition.

Digipub argued that the distinction between “online” and “offline” media cannot be used as a blanket justification to sidestep safeguards.

“Media is media. The nuance of online versus offline may apply in cases like CSAM or deepfakes. But this cannot be an omnibus to say we can do what we wish online,” the submission read.

It also warned that the government has turned Sec 79 (3) (b) of IT Act,an exemption provision, into an empowerment tool -- something neither the language of the Act nor the rules support.

“The creation of such a regime is, in itself, arbitrary,” Digipub submitted. “There is unbridled discretion. And this is no ordinary power.”