Karnataka HC rejects social media platform X Corp's petition challenging takedown orders

Bengaluru, Sep 24 (PTI) The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed social media giant X Corp's petition challenging the authority of government officials to issue content take down order under the Information Technology Act and maintained that social media needs to be regulated.

The bench presided over by Justice M Nagaprasanna stressed on regulation of social media, especially in cases of offences against women.

It further said the Indian marketplace cannot be presumed as a mere playground where information can be disseminated in defiance of statutes or disregard to legality.

"Social media needs to be regulated, and its regulation is a must, more so in cases of offences against women in particular, failing which the right to dignity, as ordained in the constitution of a citizen, gets railroaded," the court said.

X Corp had moved the court seeking a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) of IT Act does not confer the authority to issue information blocking orders. It averred that such orders can only be issued after following the procedure under Section 69A of the Act read with the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules.

Section 79 of the IT Act grants safe harbour protection to intermediaries, shielding them from liability for user-generated content, and Section 79(3)(b) removes the same if an intermediary fails to block/remove unlawful content upon government notification.

Section 69 of the IT Act, 2000 grants the government the power to issue directions to intercept, monitor, or decrypt information from any computer resource in the interest of India's sovereignty, integrity, defense, security, friendly relations with foreign states, or public order, and to prevent incitement to the commission of any cognisable offense or for the investigation of any offense.

The government must record reasons for such an order, and the affected intermediary or person in charge of the computer resource must comply and provide necessary assistance.

The petitioner’s platform is subject to a regulated regime, the judge added.

The court observed that the X follows the takedown orders in the US, the birthplace and footland of the social media as it criminalises its violation.

"But the same Petitioner refuses to follow the same in the shores of this nation of a similar takedown orders which are founded upon illegality. This sans countenance. The petition for all the aforesaid reasons lacking in merit stands rejected," Justice Nagaprasanna ruled.

The platform had sought a direction to government from taking coercive or prejudicial action against 'X' in relation to any 'Information Blocking Orders' issued other than those issued in accordance with section 69A of the IT Act, read with the blocking rules.

The court had reserved its verdict on the plea on July 29.

'X' had also sought protection from any coercive action against the company, its representatives or employees, for not joining the censorship 'Sahyog' portal.

However the court noted that 'Sahyog' portal is an instrument of public good, conceived under the IT Act.

"It stands as a beacon of cooperation between the citizen and the intermediary, a mechanism through which the state endeavors to combat the growing menace of cyber crime. To assail its validity is to misunderstand its purpose. Hence, the challenge is without merit," Justice Nagaprasanna said about 'Sahyog'.

"Social media as a modern amphitheater of ideas cannot be left in a state of anarchic freedom," the judge said adding that regulation of information in this domain is "neither novel nor unique".

According to the judge, the United States of America regulates social media.

"Every sovereign nation regulates it, and India's action likewise, cannot, by any stretch of constitutional imagination, be branded as unlawful," the court said.

It also maintained that the unregulated speech under the guise of liberty becomes a license for lawlessness. Regulated speech, by contrast, preserves, both liberty and order, the twin pillars upon which the democracy must stand.

"No media, social media platform in the modern day, may even feel the semblance of exemption from rigor of discipline of the laws of the land. None may presume to treat the Indian marketplace as a mere playground where information can be disseminated in defiance of statutes or disregard to legality, and later adopting a posture of this detachment," Justice Nagaprasanna said.

He also pointed out that every platform that seeks to operate within the jurisdiction of India must accept that liberty is yoked with responsibility and the privilege of access.

These platforms carry with it the solemn duty of accountability to hold, otherwise it will imperil both the rule of law and the fabric of social harmony, the court observed.

"The petitioners platform is subject to a regulated regime," he underlined.

"The petition, for all the aforesaid reasons lacking in merits, stands rejected. The applications of the interveners for the very reasons rendered in the course of the order stand rejected," the court said.

X Corp had moved court after the Ministry of Railways issued multiple takedown orders relating to posts on the recent stampede at New Delhi Railway Station. The company sought a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act does not authorise content blocking.

PTI COR GMS KSU GMS SA