A 3D-printed miniature model of Elon Musk and the X logo
Credit: Reuters File Photo
Bengaluru: The Union government has called it "unfortunate" and "condemnable" that X referred to ‘Sahyog’ as a ‘censorship’ portal.
In a detailed statement of objections before the High Court of Karnataka in response to the petition filed by Elon Musk's X Corp contending ‘unlawful information blocking regime’, the government stated that the petitioner had misdirected itself between the regimes under sections 69A and 79 (3) (b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act.
X has urged the court to direct that Section 79(3)(b) does not authorise the government to issue information blocking orders in circumvention of Section 69A, the Blocking Rules, and the Supreme Court decision in the Shreya Singhal case.
"It is evident from the statutory scheme of Section 69A that it permits information-blocking orders only on narrowly tailored grounds and also contemplates multiple safeguards for online content blocking. However, such safeguards are inbuilt in the scheme of Section 69A because the power conferred upon the central government (via the designated officer) is to issue "blocking orders" which are fundamentally different to the issuance of notices by the authorised agencies and its nodal officers under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000," the government said.
The statement further noted that the Section 79 regime does not envisage any ‘blocking orders’ and merely issues notices informing intermediaries of their due diligence obligations.
In case of non-compliance of the notices, the result is the lifting of safe harbour protections and consequent action under extant law as per Rule 7 of IT Rules, 2021.
The government further submitted that it is fundamentally different from Section 69A and operates at a different plane altogether and claimed the ostensible purpose of the petitioner appears to be the blanket right to claim safe harbour protections without any responsibility on the intermediary themselves.
The statement also said that Section 69A explicitly grants power to the union government to block access to information, complete with penal consequences for non-compliance, whereas Section 79 merely conditions the availability of safe harbour protections on intermediaries' compliance with notifications regarding unlawful acts.
"The petitioner has mistakenly conflated the concepts of "blocking orders" under Section 69A with "notices" under Section 79(3)(b), thus misleadingly attributing the characteristics and procedural safeguards of one provision to the other, a stance clearly rebutted by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal,” the statement said.
'Sahyog mutually beneficial'
The government stated that the Sahyog portal is only a facilitative mechanism to streamline the process, which benefits intermediaries and law enforcement agencies alike. The statement said the portal would bring together all authorised agencies of the country and the intermediaries on one platform to ensure immediate action against unlawful online information.
"It is submitted that by raising a groundless concern of censorship, the petitioner is attempting to conflate its position with that of a user who posts content on its platform, which it is not. It is submitted that the use of the said terminology by a worldwide portal like 'X' is unfortunate and condemnable," the statement read.
The government also said that being a foreign commercial entity, X does not have power to solicit hosting or defend removal of the information and data of third parties hosted on its platform. The statement also said that in the earlier round of litigation launched by Twitter, as it was earlier, the Karnataka high court had clearly held that Articles 19 and 21 are not available to it.