'No Prison Right To Challenge': Union government Warns X Over Content Removal Orders
The Union government has firmly said earlier than the karnataka High court that the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) has no legal right to challenge content material elimination orders issued by the indian government.
The government additionally warned that non-compliance with these directives could result in X losing its "secure harbor" immunity underneath indian regulation, making it legally responsible for user-generated content.
Authorities' Argument: No Right to Oppose Takedown Orders
In a strongly worded affidavit, the Centre emphasized that beneath the Information technology (IT) Act, intermediaries like X no longer have the right to question or resist content removal orders in court. It is confusing that any competition to such directives might result in the revocation of X's legal safety.
"The intermediary, as in keeping with the scheme of the facts era (IT) Act, has no right or locus, in any respect, to take in the case of its users in opposition to any orders surpassed by using the able authority underneath section seventy-nine of the Act, or else it loses its safe harbor safety," the affidavit stated.
The government, in addition, criticized X for allegedly adopting "double requirements," arguing that while the platform demands situations takedown orders in india, it voluntarily eliminates content under its inner guidelines a other times.
X's felony mission and the government's reaction
X had filed a petition wondering about the authorities' use of section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, arguing that this provision enables an unlawful parallel content material-blockading mechanism, contrary to the ideal courtroom's ruling inside the 2015 Shreya Singhal case. The organization contended that content ought to best be legally removed through a courtroom order or beneath the established process of segment 69A of the IT Act.
However, in its reaction submitted on Thursday, the Centre, represented through Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, countered that X, being a foreign organization, no longer possesses essential rights below the indian constitution, inclusive of the right to free speech.
"The only statutory property it has is conferred underneath segment 79 of the IT Act (secure harbor), which does no longer empower it to solicit website hosting or guard the elimination of the information & statistics of 1/3 events hosted on its platform," the affidavit stated.
Compliance with Takedown Orders is obligatory.
The authorities reiterated that intermediaries in india should observe takedown notices within 36 hours of receiving "actual expertise" through a court order or notification from a certified government corporation to retain their "secure harbor" protections.
"If the middleman seeks to say any secure harbor safety in the destiny, it needs to act unexpectedly to put off or disable access to the prohibited content inside 36 hours of receiving the court docket order or notification," it warned.
"Secure Harbour" isn't Absolute, Says Government
The Centre confused that "secure harbor" is a conditional privilege, not an absolute right. The affidavit mentioned that global intermediaries are blanketed from liability most effectively in the event that they act as neutral structures and do no longer actively adjust content material.
It accused X of hypocrisy, pointing out that while the corporation regularly removes content flagged by way of customers or sufferers primarily based on its inner guidelines, it resists similar requests from the indian government.
"The petitioner has installed a mechanism for removal or disabling of access to this sort of records on a voluntary basis when said by means of the consumer or a victim, as is evident from its Transparency reports (on consumer grievances and proactive tracking)," the reaction stated. "But the objection of the petitioner to remove or disable access to the sort of information flagged or notified via the right authorities, corporations/nodal officers, isn't comprehensible and tantamount to double requirements."
Want for content material law beyond phase 69A
The authorities emphasized that content law extends past countrywide security issues covered beneath Section 69A of the IT Act. Other dangerous content material categories requiring regulation include toddler sexual exploitation material (CSEM), cyberbullying, phishing, impersonation, non-consensual intimate photos, fake news, self-harm content, and illicit trade activities.
It clarified that government companies are liable for figuring out such content material and making sure its elimination. "If such statistics are identified by way of the legal enterprise of the precise government or added to be aware via a user or sufferer, then such an organization can be accountable for verifying the unlawfulness of such facts and notifying the concerned intermediary for elimination or disabling access," the response said.
X's competition to the "Sahyog" portal was rejected.
X has additionally opposed the use of "Sahyog," an I4C portal meant to manipulate section seventy-nine (3)(b) orders, labeling it a "censorship portal." The organization argued that no felony provision mandates its use or requires appointing a nodal officer for it.
In reaction, the authorities condemned X's terminology. "By elevating a groundless difficulty of censorship, the petitioner is trying to conflate its position with that of a person who posts content material on its platform, which it isn't. It's far submitted that the use of the said terminology via an international portal like 'X' is unlucky and condemnable," the affidavit said.
click and follow Indiaherald WhatsApp channel