IT Act and content blocking: Why X has challenged govt’s use of Section 79 | Current Affairs | Vision IAS

Daily News Summary

Get concise and efficient summaries of key articles from prominent newspapers. Our daily news digest ensures quick reading and easy understanding, helping you stay informed about important events and developments without spending hours going through full articles. Perfect for focused and timely updates.

News Summary

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

IT Act and content blocking: Why X has challenged govt’s use of Section 79

2 min read

Elon Musk-owned X's Challenge to Government's Use of IT Act Provisions

Elon Musk's company, X (formerly Twitter), has contested the government's use of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) to moderate and remove content on social media. The company argues that the government's use of this provision bypasses the safeguards provided under Section 69A of the IT Act, which is specifically meant for content moderation.

Shreya Singhal & Section 69A

  • In the case of Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court invalidated Section 66A of the IT Act, which allowed criminal punishment for sending false information.
  • Section 69A became the primary law governing content moderation, allowing the Centre to block information under specific constitutional grounds.
  • The grounds include matters of sovereignty, state security, public order, decency, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offence as outlined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Govt’s Use of Section 79

  • Section 79 is a "safe harbour" provision exempting intermediaries from liability for third-party content.
  • However, intermediaries could be held liable under Section 79(3)(b) if they fail to remove unlawful information upon receiving knowledge or notification from the government.
  • The Supreme Court limited this provision's application, requiring a court order or government notification for enforcement.

What X’s Challenge Says

  • X argues that the MeitY's directives attempt to bypass procedural safeguards under Section 69A and misuse Section 79.
  • The challenge relies on the Shreya Singhal case, emphasizing that content censorship should follow Section 69A or a court order process.
  • The case is currently before the Karnataka High Court, which has reserved liberty to petitioners to move the court if further actions occur.

Grok Controversy

  • X's AI chatbot, Grok 3, has sparked controversy for its use of Hindi slang and government-critical responses.
  • The issue raises questions about the applicability of "safe harbour" provisions to AI-generated content.
  • Tags :
  • IT Act
  • Shreya Singhal & Section 69A
Subscribe for Premium Features