Introduction:

In a significant legal battle, X Corp, formerly known as Twitter, finds itself at odds with the Union of India over the right to access orders passed by the Review Committee, confirming blocking directives issued by the Designated Officer. The Centre contends that X Corp lacks locus standi to seek access to Review Committee documents, emphasizing that judicial review is the appropriate recourse for any aggrieved party.

Arguments of Both Sides:

X Corp claims that emergency blocking orders against it were later reversed by the Review Committee in at least 10 cases, with instructions to unblock the respective accounts. The company asserts that the reasons in its favor have been withheld, raising concerns about transparency. However, the Union of India argues that the Review Committee’s proceedings are internal and independent, with no requirement to hear parties. It asserts that X Corp, as an intermediary, has no standing to access Review Committee documents and can only seek judicial review. The Centre questions X Corp’s right to challenge blocking orders for objectionable content not created or authored by the company.

Court’s Judgment:

The Centre underscores that review mechanisms are designed to protect those directly affected by the exercise of power, namely the creators or authors of objectionable content. It points to X Corp’s own claim that it is an intermediary eligible for exemption from certain liabilities under the IT Act, and such safeguards can only be invoked by content creators. The Centre further argues that X Corp, having failed to seek a stay on the single judge’s decision upholding blocking orders, cannot indirectly challenge it by demanding access to Review Committee documents. The case is adjourned for two weeks.