Govt Officers Across Country Ordering To Block Content Based On 'Subjective Morality': X Corp Tells Karnataka High Court

In the ongoing challenge to content takedown directives issued by the Union Government, X Corp (formerly Twitter) told the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday that thousands of Central government officers across India having their subjective understanding of law and morality are directing it to block content by virtue of power under Section 79 of the IT Act. Union's officers deciding what is lawful based on their whims and fanciesSenior Advocate KG Raghavan, representing X Corp, submitted before Justice N Nagprasanna:"Thousands of officers appointed by the Union across the country, each with their own subjective understanding of online content, are making decisions within their respective jurisdictions under Section 79. This results in arbitrary and inconsistent content regulation. Unlike Section 69A, which requires decision-making through a committee process, Section 79 allows a single officer to issue takedown directions without any institutional safeguards. This is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution...Across the country, thousands of officers, each with their own subjective understanding of what is lawful or moral, are making such decisions as per their own whims and fancies. There is no coordination or uniformity among these government officers, and that amounts to arbitrariness".He further argued that Section 79(3)(b) cannot serve as an independent or standalone source of power to block content, especially in the absence of procedural safeguards that are embedded in Section 69A. He further emphasised that Section 79(3)(b) does not, in itself, confer blocking powers on the executive. "The primary question is can Section 79(3)(b) of IT Act said to be source of power? Can this provision, even if it is held to be a source of power be read as standalone provision, independent of 69A of the IT Act? We submit that 79(3)(b) is not a source of power. If at all it is held to be source of power, it is constrained by the requirements of 69A IT Act", he said. Referring to Section 69A of the IT Act, Raghavan said that it provides a structured regime that requires satisfaction of necessity on limited grounds (such as sovereignty, public order, security of state etc.), mandates reasons to be recorded in writing, and ensures procedural checks and balances, which is absent in Section 79(3)(b), where an officer/agency takes the decisions.Union's Officers arbitrarily empowered to take final call on blockingHe said that while the platform has "no intention to injure public interest" however, Section 79(3)(b) cannot be read in isolation as a standalone power to bypass these safeguards under Section 69A. "Can a blocking order be passed from the confines of a government officer's room? The answer is no… It becomes a case of 'I say so, therefore it is so'. The officer's decision is treated as final, and if I don't obey, I lose my protection (safe harbour) under Section 79(1) IT Act", he remarked, stressing the 'opacity' and arbitrariness of the government's current approach. In other words, he said that under Section 79(3)(b), the government is issuing a notice to an intermediary when it think is 'being used to commit an unlawful act', but the interpretation of what constitutes an 'unlawful act' is left entirely to the discretion of a government officer.He argued that what may be considered defamatory or offensive in Bengaluru might not be seen the same way in other states. He said that while some words used in Bengaluru colloquially could be considered offensive elsewhere. He therefore questioned whether Union's officers, based on their individual understanding and without any uniform standard, decide whether a particular post is unlawful or not.Not saying 'X' is above the law, but need procedural safeguards Raghavan noted that the Union Government consistently argues that Section 79(3)(b) is distinct from Section 69A and not subject to its procedural discipline. This, he argued, effectively enables the executive to issue content-blocking directions without any statutory or judicial oversight, which, X Corp claims, is unconstitutional and violative of Article 14. He also submitted that X Corp has no intention to disobey the law of the land, and instead, he sought procedural safeguards in the process of issuance of blocking orders. "I have no control over what is posted on my platform,. Somebody else is posting posts on my platform, I have no control over it. But, can I wash my hands so that even if anything offensive is posted on our platform, I can't do anything? NO. I am not saying this, it is not our case. Each and every country has rules in this regard and they have to be complied with. I want to allay the impression from the court's mind and even union govt's mind, we are not saying we are above the law. We are just saying that a procedural safeguard is not available under 79, which is available under 69A, and thus violative of Article 14". X Corp...

Govt Officers Across Country Ordering To Block Content Based On 'Subjective Morality': X Corp Tells Karnataka High Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

Govt Officers Across Country Ordering To Block Content Based On 'Subjective Morality': X Corp Tells Karnataka High Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers