Why do X sue the Indian Government for censorship? Musk within the US administration could play a role

Kolkata – An ongoing process submitted by billionaire Elon Musk’s social media platform X body against the Indian government is closely watched by many in the country because of her potential impact on the regulatory framework of the digital content in India.

X accuses the government of illegally censored the online content. In it Process, deposited in front of the High Court of Karnataka on March 5, X says Indian government illegally expanded its censorship powers, mandate “Countless” government officials for It makes it easier to eliminate online content.

The case was made public by the Indian media reports on March 20; The next hearing is gliding for April 3.

X’s legal challenge is also pursued with interest because of his calendar. It comes against the background of Mr. Musk’s increasing influence in the administration of US President Donald Trump and India’s efforts to protect himself from any negative fall from Mr. Trump’s external policies, including commercial rates.

Two Other companies owned by the estates- Satellite internet provider Starlink and car manufacturer Tesla – approach the launch of their business in India, Promising the problem of wHY X takes over the government at this time.

The American Social Media Company challenged the government use of section 79 (3) (b) of information technology (It) act, 2000 to issue withdrawal commands. Firm say This clause does not give the government the right to issue such orders.

This practice Using Section 79 (3) (b) by the Governmentadd, Avoid the existing legal process for content regulation and create a parallel content blocking mechanism that works without procedural guarantees as provided in section 69a of the IT and IT law (blocking the rules) 2009-on which the Supreme Court confirmed it.

The process He also reported a “censure portal” called Sahyog, launched by the Ministry of Internal Affairs In 2024, that is used to issue content elimination orders and that social media companies, including x, I was asked to register.

Section 69a, Provides the Government the right to eliminate online content, such as those that can harm the integrity of India or its securitybut with certain detailed IT checks (locking rules) 2009. Any locking orders, for example, It must be issued by a high -ranking government officer, and the reasons for being registered in writing, which is also subjected to judicial control.

Section 79 (3) (b), that was introduced in 2008 when the IT act was modified, However, it does not have such checks. It simply states that a “adequate” government agency can request platforms such as removing content. If I do this, add that the platforms will lose their “safe port” – a cover provided in section 79 (1) of the IT law This protects the platforms from the legal liability for the content of third parties.

In a blog post on March 21, Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), a non-profit group in Delhi, said the Government has transformed this safe port frame into a “large-scale censorship system.”

He cites a government memorandum of October 2023 by which the Ministry of Information Electronics and Technology has requested the ministries of the central government, state governments and police officers to designate officers who can issue withdrawal opinions according to section 79 (3) (b). These commands can be sent via the Sahyog portal without an explicit written justification, He added, which makes it difficult to exercise judicial supervision and challenge.

Non -governmental organizations and experts say that X’s legal challenge, if successful, could help prevent subsequent erosion of online expression in India. IFF described X’s petition as “an intervention needed to place checks and balances on web censors in India.”

Said the group Using Section 79 (3) (b) to block the content has led to the “illegal orders” from the government departments and entities, “resulting in a framework of opaque censorship orders” that bypass the guarantees mandated by the court.

According to a Hindustan Times report on March 21India’s railway ministry has sent at least seven content to take over on the December social platforms 2024targeting videos that range from overcrowded trains to vandalism incidents.

Between 2022 and 2024, The government blocked 28.079 URLsa jump from 19,580 over the last three years.

Mr. Prateek Waghre, a Bangalore -based technological policy researcher, said that the use of the withdrawal notifications has increased in recent years, which has been fulfilled with little resistance from social media platforms. “In this context, X pushing is interesting,” he told The Straits Times.

Mr. Waghre mentioned that Increased government dependence on section 79 (3) (b) Issuing withdrawal notifications is part of its wider effort to achieve better content control in its various forms.

For example, the Government aims to set up a media council to regulate, dissemination and digital media within a unified regulatory framework, with the council having even powers to issue take over opinions.

“You can have a wider field regarding who can issue withdrawal commands, which then feed in the wider doctrine of information control, through which you try to suppress uncomfortable information”, ” Mr. Waghre added.

The government told the court in its defense of March 28 that section 79 (3) (b) balances the liability of the platform and free expression, while ensuring the legal orders. He added that the description of the Sahyog portal as a censorship portal is “convicted”, mentioning that 38 intermediaries such as Google and Amazon have already joined the portal.

Does the influence of the musk play a role?

Mr. Shashank Reddy, a leader at Evam Law & Policy, a consulting firm for technical policies in Delhi, said that X’s process aims to create a “more benign operating environment” in India, in India for which sir Trump has pleaded globally.

Not only that section 79 (3) (b) raises the costs of compliance for American technological companies in India, exposing it to a much higher number of withdrawal notice than in more regulated section 69, It also exposes them to the risk of losing their port safely. Any such movement, noted Mr. Reddy, could expose the leadership of X and the employees of India to “everything, from criminal investigations to civil defamation.”

Avoiding such legal Wrangles is what the company tries to avoid his process. A court decision in favor will provide X “a breathing space”, a valuable profit in India, the third largest market for users worldwide, with about 27 million users.

But, given the political sensibilities involved, Mr. Reddy said It is likely that the case is not decided in the courtroom. “There will be a kind of negotiations between X and the Indian government,” he added.

Media reports indicated that the Indian government is already in discussions with X after Grok 3, Chatbot of Artificial Intelligence (AI) of X, whipped Above A viral storm in India In March With its unrestrained answers, some of them were subjected not only by humor, but also by exploitatives.

The questions also led to a political controversial answers, including one that said Prime Minister Narendra modifiedS Claims about his educational environment are “Sketchy”, which causes many to create that the chatbot has enjoyed greater freedom of expression than the Indians.

But the government’s response to Grok 3 was relatively muteD, Unlike the reaction with which Google faced when the platform has gemini suggested in 2024 that some experts believe Mr Modi’s policies are “fascist”. Twins led the conviction from no less than the State Minister for Information Technology Rajeev Chandrasekhar, who accused Google of violating India’s lawscausing the technological company to apologize.

Mr. Reddy said Backhannel negotiations will approach The process of X, who, he claims, X Think He has a better chance to succeed now, given the approach of Mr. Musk to Mr. Trump and his influence within the American Administration – A factor that could soften the approach of the Indian government on how American technological companies are allowed to operate in India.

“I think Musk or at least X’s leadership in India believes that there is a window of opportunity for them to assume the government without necessarily attracting the government’s reaction,” he told St.

• Debarshi Dasgupta is the correspondent of India Straits Times that covers the country and other parts of South Asia.

Join The Telegram channel of ST And get the latest last -minute news.