Karnataka HC to pronounce order in X vs Union of India case today
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court will on Wednesday pronounce an order in the social media platform X Corp, formerly known as Twitter Inc, versus the Union of India case regarding freedom of speech and uncontrolled censorship.
The bench headed by Justice M. Nagaprasanna has listed the matter of pronouncement of the order at 4 p.m.
The arguments and counterarguments have been submitted in the case. Senior counsel K.G. Raghavan has represented X, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Arvind Kamath have made their submissions for the Union of India.
X Corp filed a writ petition in March, seeking an interim order to protect itself from what it alleged were “coercive actions”.
The “Twitter vs. Union of India” matter, also known as X Corp vs. Union of India, is a legal battle before the Karnataka High Court where Elon Musk-owned X Corp is seeking a court order against the Indian government’s alleged misuse of the IT Act to censor content and block accounts, particularly regarding the Sahyog Portal. X has called this portal a “Censorship Portal”.
The core of the case is X Corp’s argument that these actions violate free speech, threaten their business model, and represent an attempt to bypass established legal procedures and create an unregulated censorship system.
X Corp is challenging the government’s use of the Information Technology (IT) Act, specifically orders under Section 69A and the alleged misuse of Section 79(3)(b).
This isn’t the first confrontation; in 2022, X Corp challenged Section 69A orders for blocking entire accounts, but the Karnataka High Court upheld the government’s authority.
The petition maintained that the government’s requests include removing content from opposition leaders and critics, which X Corp believes undermines its role as an intermediary.
The company asserted that the government’s actions constitute a blatant attempt to create a censorship system without established legal procedures or oversight.
However, the counsels representing the Centre submitted that the government’s power to block information online is outlined in Section 69A, allowing for restrictions in the interest of sovereignty, security, public order, and to prevent incitement of offences.
At a hearing on March 17, Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed X to approach the court if the government took any “precipitative action” against it. The government, during the hearing, maintained that no punitive measures had yet been taken against X for refusing to join the Sahyog portal.