Hindustan Times Report (Via Business StandardsAccording to), X has challenged Section 79 (3) (b) of the IT Act in its petition filed against the Government of India. The company says that the government is creating a parallel content blocking system using this section, which violates the Supreme Court’s 2015 ‘Shreya Singhal’ decision. This decision said that the content can only be blocked under the procedure of a competent court order or Section 69A of the IT Act.
According to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting of India, any social media platforms under Section 79 (3) (b) will have to remove illegal content or stop its reach, if it gets information through court order or government notification. Failure to do so will end the ‘safe harbor’ security of the platform within 36 hours, so that it can come under legal action under other laws including the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Ministry issued an official order in this regard on 3 November 2023.
The report states that X said in the court that the government does not have the right to block the content under this section, but the government is misusing it and is ignoring the security provisions of Section 69A.
Explain that Section 69A of the IT Act empowers the government that any online content can be blocked keeping in mind the sovereignty, integrity, security and public system of the country. The process is controlled under the IT blocking rules made in 2009, in which a committee reviews before issuing blocking orders. The government has already blocked many apps and games under this law.
Not only this, the report further states that X has not only demanded protection from the wrongly issued blocking orders, but has also objected to the issue related to the SAHYOG portal. This portal has been built by the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Center (I4C), so that the process of implementing the orders of Section 79 (3) (B) can be simplified. But X called it a “censorship portal” and said that it is not mandatory under the law.
The company has also claimed that it has already appointed essential officers under the IT (arbitration guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 and does not need to be appointed separate officers for the SHYOG portal.
In the hearing held on March 17, Justice M Nagprasanna allegedly stated that if the government takes any strict steps against the X, X can again move the court. However, the government made it clear in the court that no punitive action has been taken against it for not joining the SAHYOG portal of X.