X Corp Challenges Centre’s Use of Section 79(3)(b); Calls Govt’s “Per Incuriam” Claim Against SC Judgment

In a significant legal battle with implications for intermediary liability and digital free speech in India, social media platform X Corp (formerly Twitter) argued before the Karnataka High Court that the Central Government's interpretation of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act is contrary to settled constitutional law, calling the Centre’s claim that the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India is per incuriam as “unheard of.”

The case, titled X Corp v. Union of India & Others (WP 7405/2025), was heard by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who was addressing X Corp’s plea for protection against information blocking orders not issued under Section 69A of the IT Act and a challenge to the government’s alleged coercion to join the ‘Sahyog’ censorship portal.

Background of the Dispute

X Corp seeks a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) does not independently authorize the government to block online content. Instead, it argues that Section 69A, with its procedural safeguards, is the only valid route for such action.

X also challenged the government’s attempt to mandate participation in the ‘Sahyog’ portal, which automates the takedown notice process. The company contended that forced compliance amounts to indirect censorship, without the legal safeguards mandated by the Supreme Court.

Key Arguments from X Corp

Appearing for X Corp, senior advocate K.G. Raghavan made several powerful submissions:

• The Centre’s position that the Supreme Court’s decision in Shreya Singhal is per incuriam and not binding is legally untenable and unprecedented.

• Shreya Singhal, which dealt with Sections 66A, 69A, and 79(3)(b), upheld 69A due to its procedural safeguards and limited the application of 79(3)(b) to cases where a valid court or government order exists.

• Section 69A is the sole repository of the power to block content, and blocking orders must be reasoned and reviewable.

• Section 79, by contrast, is an exemption clause, not a standalone blocking power.

• The lack of procedural safeguards under Section 79(3)(b) could empower any government officer—including a tax officer or village clerk—to issue blocking orders arbitrarily.

Raghavan also emphasized that the ‘safe harbour’ protection granted under Section 79 is conditional and not a constitutional right, but must be interpreted in line with Article 14 and 19, especially when it involves freedom of speech.

Centre’s Counter

The Union Government defended its stance, arguing:

• Safe harbour is a conditional statutory privilege, not a fundamental right under Article 19.

• Intermediaries must demonstrate due diligence to claim protection.

• The ‘Sahyog’ portal is not coercive and merely operationalizes existing statutory obligations.

Court Observations and Next Steps

Justice Nagaprasanna noted that the matter involves substantial questions and directed that no fresh action should be taken by the government pending adjudication. The Court declined to issue any new interim orders beyond what had already been granted on March 17, 2025, but allowed X Corp to file a rejoinder.

The case is now listed for final hearing on April 24, 2025.

Legal Significance

This case could significantly reshape the contours of intermediary liability and government control over online content in India. It revisits the limits of executive power under the IT Act, the role of constitutional protections for digital platforms, and the binding value of Supreme Court precedents.

If the court upholds X Corp’s arguments, it could rein in arbitrary blocking orders, reaffirm the centrality of Section 69A safeguards, and set a precedent against broad executive interpretations of intermediary liability.