Introduction:

In the case of X Corp vs Union of India (WP 7405/2025), X Corp India—the Indian arm of Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter)—has approached the Karnataka High Court challenging the authority of the Ministry of Railways and other governmental agencies to issue orders demanding removal or disabling of content on social media without following the strict procedures laid down under Section 69A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000. X Corp’s petition arose after it received a notice on June 26, 2025, from the Ministry of Railways asking it to disable access to a viral video of a woman driving her car on railway tracks in Hyderabad.

Arguments:

Representing X Corp, Senior Advocate K G Raghavan expressed concerns over arbitrary takedown demands, stating during arguments before Justice M Nagaprasanna that “What if every Tom, Dick and Harry officer sends notice to me. See how this is being misused.” He further contended that the video in question—a woman recklessly driving on railway tracks—while sensational, did not amount to unlawful content and could not justify a blocking order without the statutory process under Section 69A. He highlighted that under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, intermediaries lose safe harbour protection only when they fail to expeditiously remove unlawful content upon actual knowledge from a court order or appropriate government notification, but the procedure must be in accordance with Section 69A read with the 2009 Blocking Rules, which includes a detailed process of notice, hearing, and recording of reasons before content can be blocked, ensuring safeguards against misuse. Raghavan argued that bypassing these procedural safeguards to issue ad-hoc takedown notices opens doors to arbitrary censorship and chills free speech, as intermediaries like X Corp cannot assess on their own whether content violates Indian law without clear, reasoned orders. He pressed that the government’s current practice risks turning every bureaucratic whim into an enforceable order, undermining legal certainty and platform neutrality.

On the other hand, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union of India, strongly objected to the language used by X Corp’s counsel, taking umbrage at referring to officers as “Tom, Dick and Harry.” He insisted that officers issuing such notices are “statutory functionaries empowered to take action” and emphasized that social media intermediaries cannot expect unregulated operation in India. Mehta submitted that similar compliance is expected from intermediaries in other jurisdictions and India cannot be treated differently. He argued that once an intermediary is notified by a competent authority about unlawful content, it has a duty to act expeditiously or risk losing its immunity under Section 79, adding that intermediaries are not the final arbiters of legality and cannot defy directions from authorized officials simply by questioning the process. He also accused X Corp of “arrogance” typical of international bodies who seek exemptions from domestic law, asserting that India’s sovereignty includes regulating digital spaces within its borders. Addressing an intervention by Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, representing an association of digital media houses, Mehta contended that content creators have no locus to intervene in a matter strictly between the intermediary and the government, saying “Let application be heard along with the main matter. But he need not support Twitter, it is an international body and competent and it does not require such external support.” However, Sondhi countered that content creators are directly impacted because orders are issued to intermediaries to block their original work, effectively censoring their expression without notice or opportunity to contest. He emphasized that creative industries depend on platforms for dissemination, and opaque blocking orders undermine not only their economic interests but also freedom of expression.

Judgement:

The court, through Justice M Nagaprasanna, interjected during the hearing that it took exception to the dismissive remarks about government officers, affirming “These are officers of the Union of India. I take objection to this. They are officers and not Tom, Dick and Harry.” The bench underscored that any memorandum submitted to the court must be properly served on the opposite side with time given for reply to ensure procedural fairness. Acknowledging the complexity of balancing regulatory authority with freedom of speech, the court suggested the matter be heard comprehensively and posted the case for final hearing on July 8, 2025. The bench allowed X Corp to amend its petition to implead various ministries of the Union of India, given that different agencies issue takedown orders. It directed the Union to file its objections to the amended petition and intervention application. The hearing highlighted the growing tension between India’s regulatory apparatus and global social media intermediaries, exposing fundamental questions about how far the government’s power extends to unilaterally block content without judicial oversight or the process mandated under Section 69A. X Corp’s plea, if successful, could reaffirm that only Section 69A orders, passed with due process including representation of affected parties and a recorded decision, can legally bind intermediaries to disable content—ensuring transparency and accountability. On the other hand, the government’s position, if upheld, may broaden executive power by allowing officers to issue takedown notices without adhering to procedural safeguards, based on a reading of Section 79(3)(b) that imposes an unconditional duty on intermediaries once they are notified of purportedly unlawful content. This case, therefore, represents a test of India’s legal architecture for content regulation, with potential ramifications for free speech, intermediary liability, and digital rights across the country. The final ruling will either strengthen procedural safeguards for content blocking or endorse a regime of executive takedown demands—reshaping the contours of online expression in India.