Bengaluru, Sep 24 (NationPress) The Karnataka High Court is set to announce its ruling on Wednesday in the case involving the social media platform X Corp, previously known as Twitter Inc, against the Union of India. This case revolves around crucial issues of freedom of speech and allegations of unchecked censorship.

The bench, led by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, has scheduled the order pronouncement for 4 p.m.

Arguments from both sides have been presented. Senior counsel K.G. Raghavan represents X, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Arvind Kamath have advocated for the Indian government.

X Corp initiated a writ petition in March, requesting an interim ruling to shield itself from what it described as "coercive actions".

The dispute, known as X Corp vs. Union of India, sees the Elon Musk-owned X Corp seeking judicial protection against the Indian government's alleged misuse of the IT Act to censor content and block accounts, particularly concerning the Sahyog Portal, which X has labeled a “Censorship Portal.”

The crux of the case lies in X Corp's assertion that these actions infringe upon free speech, jeopardize their business model, and signify an attempt to circumvent established legal protocols, fostering an unregulated censorship environment.

X Corp is contesting the government's application of the Information Technology (IT) Act, specifically challenging orders under Section 69A and alleged misuse of Section 79(3)(b).

This marks not the first legal clash; previously, in 2022, X Corp contested Section 69A orders that led to the blocking of entire accounts, but the Karnataka High Court upheld the government's authority.

The petition argues that the government’s demands include removing content from opposition figures and critics, which X Corp contends undermines its intermediary role.

The company claims that the government's maneuvers constitute a direct effort to establish a censorship regime devoid of established legal frameworks or oversight.

Conversely, the government’s representatives argued that their power to restrict online information is enshrined in Section 69A, which permits limitations in the interests of sovereignty, national security, public order, and to avert incitement of offenses.

During a hearing on March 17, Justice M. Nagaprasanna permitted X to approach the court if the government undertook any “precipitative action” against it. The government maintained during the hearing that no punitive measures had been enacted against X for opting out of the Sahyog portal.