In an ongoing legal battle with the Indian government, Elon Musk-owned social media platform X Corp has told the Karnataka High Court that India’s internet censorship regime has become dangerously decentralised — with officers from departments like Railways, GST, Rural Development and others, now empowered to block online content.
In its preliminary submission dated July 7, and accessed by Moneycontrol, the platform argues that Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, allows “countless executive officers” to make judgments about the lawfulness of speech through the Sahyog Portal without any judicial process or oversight.
The government’s Sahyog Portal, an online system through which these officers issue takedown orders, has been at the centre of X’s challenge. The company alleges the portal lacks legal backing, and by invoking Sec 79 (3) (b) of the IT Act for withholding holding, the government is bypassing established safeguards for blocking content under Section 69A of the IT Act.
“R.3(1)(d) (of IT Rules) creates a mechanism that allows countless executive officers such as police officers, railway officers and GST officers to decide whether information is “unlawful” as a matter of law This includes superintendents of police, deputy commissioners of police, departments of state police, and various officers of central ministries like the Ministry of Finance who can issue takedown orders,” the submission said.
“Thus, R.3(1)(d) empowers executive officers and not the Judiciary to decide unlawfulness which is ex facie in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers,” it added.
Currently, X informed, various officers of central ministries (apart from the ones mentioned earlier) like Ministry of Heavy Industries, Home Affairs, police officers in 30 states and Union Territories including Delhi, Punjab, Karnataka, West Bengal and so on, are empowered to issue takedown orders through Sahyog Portal.
According to the platform, this constitutes a clear violation of the separation of powers and Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law.
“..multiple officers are empowered to adjudge unlawfulness of the same information. Even if one officer finds some content to be unlawful, an information blocking order will be passed even though many other officers who have examined the same content may feel otherwise,” X corp explained.
X has called for Rule 3(1)(d) to be struck down, arguing that it improperly delegates quasi-judicial powers to the executive.
Offline vs Online
In its submission, X Corp also pointed out that Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, gives government officers sweeping powers to block online content, including speech that would otherwise require a court order if it was in a printed format.
The company claims this violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law
“R.3(1)(d) also violates Art. 14 because it allows Respondents to summarily censor speech online that would be impermissible for printed material such as books. For example.. if a book is alleged to be defamatory.. only upon conviction can a court order the destruction of copies… However, R.3(1)(d) allows Respondents to summarily block the same information if it is published online, without trial or judicial oversight,” the submission said.
The court is expected to continue hearing arguments later this month.
