How X Vs Union Of India Verdict Redraws The Boundaries Of Digital Freedom

In the digital age, the internet has become both a marketplace of ideas and a conduit for instantaneous communication, shaping public discourse in ways that previous generations could scarcely imagine. With this transformation, the challenge for law and governance has intensified. How does the state balance the constitutional guarantee of free speech with its duty to prevent harm arising from unlawful or destabilising content?

This complication is very much visible in the Karnataka High Court’s recent judgment in X Corp v. Union of India. X Corp, formerly known as Twitter, challenged the government’s authority to issue content-blocking orders under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, contending that such powers were confined to Section 69A of the same Act and its procedural safeguards.

Beyond the immediate dispute, the case raises fundamental questions about the scope of intermediary liability, the procedural safeguards necessary for digital censorship, and the broader constitutional boundaries of freedom of expression in India’s evolving digital ecosystem.

Core Issue

The Karnataka High Court, in X Corp v. Union of India, examined whether the government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act to issue content-blocking orders, along with Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 Information Technology Rules and the Sahyog Portal, which was developed to automate the process of sending notices to intermediaries by the appropriate government or its agency under the IT Act, 2000, to facilitate the removal or disabling of access to any information, data or communication link being used to commit an unlawful act, is constitutionally valid.

X Corp (formerly Twitter) contended that Section 79(3)(b) does not empower the government to restrict content and argued that only Section 69A, with its procedural safeguards, could authorise such measures. The petitioner claimed Rule 3(1)(d) and the Sahyog Portal exceeded statutory authority and violated Article 19(1)(a) rights.

The petitioners relied on Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, asserting that the Apex Court had already defined the limits of intermediary liability and content restriction. The Union of India, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, highlighted the transformation of the digital landscape. India’s internet subscriber base had grown from 25 crore in 2014 to over 98 crore, with per-user wireless data consumption exceeding 20 GB per month.

The government argued that intermediaries, while enjoying safe harbour under Section 79, must remove unlawful content promptly or risk losing immunity. He further contended that the protection under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution applies only to Indian citizens, not foreign entities like X Corp, though intervening Indian users can assert their rights.

The Court also noted that U.S. jurisprudence, such as Reno v. ACLU, cannot override Indian constitutional law, which allows reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution for the sake of public order, as affirmed in Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras.

The Court concluded that Section 79(3)(b), read alongside Section 69A and the 2009 Blocking Rules, provides a legitimate statutory basis for content regulation, ensuring procedural safeguards and intermediary accountability. Rule 3(1)(d) and the Sahyog Portal were upheld as lawful instruments facilitating compliance with these statutory obligations.

The judgment reinforced that social media platforms cannot operate unchecked and must strike a balance between the right to free expression, public order, and societal interests.

By rejecting the petitioner’s challenge, the Court affirmed the State’s regulatory authority while safeguarding constitutional freedoms, emphasising that digital liberty is inseparable from responsibility.

Analysis of the Judgement

Applicability of Article 19(1)(a) to Foreign Entities

Distinction Between Section 69A and Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act

The Court's differentiation between Section 69A and Section 79(3)(b) is well-founded. While Section 69A pertains to blocking access to information in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, and similar concerns, Section 79(3)(b) imposes a duty on intermediaries to act upon receiving actual knowledge of unlawful content.

The Court emphasised that the Sahyog Portal facilitates this process by streamlining communication between law enforcement agencies and intermediaries, ensuring timely action against illegal content. This approach aligns with the legislative intent to hold intermediaries accountable while preserving the constitutional framework.

Relevance of the Shreya Singhal Judgment

The Court appropriately distinguished the present case from the Shreya Singhal judgment, noting that the legal landscape has changed with the advent of new technologies and the exponential growth of internet users. The Court observed that the principles laid down in Shreya Singhal were based on the legal context prevalent at that time and may not be entirely applicable to the current scenario, which involves more complex challenges in digital content regulation.

The Role of Algorithms and Human Responsibility

In addressing the role of algorithms in content dissemination, the Court rightly pointed out that algorithms are not neutral; they are designed and programmed by humans and thus reflect human judgment. The Court emphasised the need for transparency and accountability in algorithmic decision-making, aligning with the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair hearing. This perspective is crucial in ensuring that automated systems do not infringe upon fundamental rights.

The Necessity of Regulating Social Media Platforms

The Court's recognition of the need to regulate social media platforms is timely and justified. With the proliferation of digital content, including harmful and unlawful material, unregulated platforms can pose significant risks to public order and individual rights. The Court highlighted that the Sahyog Portal is a facilitative mechanism designed to ensure compliance with legal provisions, thereby protecting citizens from the adverse effects of unregulated digital content.

The Court further examined various studies from different institutions on the dangers of social media. It also cited the rapid spread of misinformation and the circulation of irrelevant and improper news worldwide during the COVID-19 pandemic, along with other reports, to illustrate the potential dangers of disseminating information on social media.

Conclusion

The Karnataka High Court rightly emphasised that the digital public square, while vital for free expression, cannot operate unchecked, as unregulated content poses real risks to public order and citizens’ rights. Upholding Section 79(3)(b) read with Section 69A of the Information Technology Act and the 2009 Blocking Rules, the Court affirmed that intermediaries must act responsibly, while the Sahyog Portal serves as a legitimate mechanism to ensure compliance.

It clarified that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protects only Indian citizens and that foreign jurisprudence cannot override domestic constitutional principles. By balancing liberty with accountability, the Court reinforced the State’s regulatory role, protected democratic discourse, and ensured that freedom of speech coexists with the responsibility to prevent misuse in the digital age.