Billionaire Elon Musk’s social media platform X has filed a lawsuit against the Central government. The lawsuit challenges the government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, to issue inflammatory content blocking orders. X claims this practice leads to the creation of a parallel and unlawful content censorship regime.
The episode is a fallout of the way Musk’s Grok AI has been subtly establishing a reputation for itself by offering shockingly frank observations into a range of famous individuals and organisations. Grok directed barbs at its own creator Elon Musk, calling him one of the main providers of fake information on X. Additionally, Grok called the Indian Prime Minister a PR Machine, pointing out how infrequently he attended press conferences. The AI noted that PM Modi has had few noteworthy media appearances since taking office as prime minister in 2014, with the exception of his 2025 joint appearance with President Donald Trump.
X has sought protection for its representatives and employees against coercive action. This request is in response to the government’s demand that X’s personnel join Sahyog, a Ministry of Home Affairs portal, which X alleges is a “Censorship Portal”.
According to multiple media reports, in a petition filed with the Karnataka High Court on March 17, X argued that multiple government departments and agencies are now issuing content takedown notices to the social media platforms.
They are allegedly doing so by misusing Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, in an attempt to “bypass the multiple procedural safeguards” prescribed under Section 69A of the IT Act.
All central ministries, state governments, state deputy generals of police, and essentially tens of thousands of local police officers have been “directed” by the IT Ministry to issue information blocking orders under Section 79(3)(b) without going through the Section 69A procedure, according to X’s argument.
X has asserted that this practice violates the Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 Shreya Singhal judgment, which ruled that content could only be censored through a court order or under Section 69A. The company noted that a full 23 years after Section 79 was enacted, and 14 years after the current version went into effect, respondents are now attempting to misuse it to create an unlawful blocking regime without any of the protections.
Online intermediaries like X may lose their safe harbour protections under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act if they neglect to prohibit access to content that has been flagged by a “suitable” government entity. Because safe harbour protections give social media companies legal immunity from hosting user-generated content, they are essential to their operation.
During the court hearings, the government informed the court that it has not taken any action against X for not joining the Sahyog portal.
Also Read: Gujarat’s Jhulasan Rejoices As Sunita Williams Lands Safely
