Centre Criticizes X for Censorship Portal Allegation, Defends Sahyog in Karnataka HC
Click to start listening
Synopsis
The Union government has strongly opposed Elon Musk-owned X Corp's classification of the 'Sahyog' portal as a censorship portal, filing objections in the Karnataka High Court. The Centre asserts that X has misinterpreted IT Act provisions and emphasizes the legal distinctions between blocking orders and takedown requests.
Key Takeaways
- Centre opposes X's claims regarding Sahyog.
- Legal distinctions between IT Act provisions highlighted.
- Section 79(3)(b) pertains to takedown requests.
- Government's memorandum does not reference a blocking order.
- Further hearings are scheduled for April 3.
Bengaluru, March 29 (NationPress) The Union government has firmly opposed Elon Musk-owned X Corp's description of the 'Sahyog' portal as a 'censorship portal', submitting a formal objection in the Karnataka High Court.
The Centre maintained that X has misinterpreted essential sections of the IT Act, especially the differences between Section 69A and Section 79(3)(b).
X Corp argues that Section 79(3)(b) does not grant the government the authority to issue blocking orders, a power that belongs solely under Section 69A.
Rejecting X's claims, the Centre highlighted that the platform's use of phrases such as 'censorship portal' and 'blocking order' is misleading and legally incorrect.
"By presenting a groundless concern over censorship, X is attempting to position itself as a user, which it is not. Labeling Sahyog a censorship portal is both misleading and unacceptable," the Centre's affidavit stated.
It emphasized that takedown notices under Section 79(3)(b) in conjunction with Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, are requests for removal rather than blocking orders.
"The only legal protection it has under Section 79 of the IT Act does not permit interference in governmental decisions regarding content regulation," the government affidavit explained.
Furthermore, the government clarified that its Office Memorandum dated March 31, 2023, does not reference a 'Template Blocking Order', as claimed by X. Instead, it provides a template for content removal requests, adhering to established protocols.
The Centre pointed out that the petitioner has conveniently overlooked the obligations of intermediaries as outlined in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, particularly concerning Rule 3(1)(d) related to Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000.
In defending the legal structure, the Centre asserted that Section 79(3)(b) ensures a balance between platform liability and free speech while complying with lawful orders.
On the other hand, Section 69A allows the government to block access to online content under specific circumstances concerning national security, public order, and sovereignty.
The government argued that X is trying to merge two different legal provisions to mislead the court.
"It is asserted that by raising an unfounded concern of censorship, the petitioner aims to equate its position with that of a user posting content on its platform, which it is not. The use of such terminology by a global platform like X is regrettable and reprehensible," the government stated in its affidavit.
Currently, the court has not yet made a ruling on the issue, and additional hearings are set for April 3.
X had approached the Karnataka High Court, claiming that the Sahyog portal and associated governmental actions bypass the legal framework established by the IT Act and the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.
