E-Paper
Centre issued 62 takedown orders in April and May: X
X made the revelation to contend that current legal procedures under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act are sufficient and work effectively even during security crises
Social media platform X has disclosed that the government successfully issued over 62 emergency blocking orders in April and May, targeting 12,000 URLs and 10,500 accounts, as evidence that existing legal frameworks are adequate and the government doesn’t need controversial parallel mechanisms to regulate content.
The number of orders, issued at a time of heightened tensions following the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir and India’s Operation Sindoor that struck terror bases in Pakistan in the weeks after, was disclosed in X’s submissions filed on July 7 in the Karnataka High Court, where it has challenged the government’s use of the Sahyog portal and Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act to issue content takedown orders, arguing these mechanisms are unconstitutional and bypass proper legal safeguards.
The scale of the 62 emergency orders in those months reveals previously unknown extent of the content moderation directives from the government. X made the revelation to contend that current legal procedures under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act – which was invoked in the 62 orders -- are sufficient and work effectively even during security crises.
“If both S.69A and S.79(3)(b) empower blocking, then the same information can be blocked by two separate mechanisms — one mechanism with the safeguards of S.69A and 2009 Blocking Rules, and another mechanism under S.79(3)(b) without any safeguards whatsoever. This is manifestly arbitrary and therefore, violative of Art. 14,” X argued in its submissions.
The ministry of electronics and information technology (Meity) did not respond to requests for a comment on this contention by X.
The core of X’s argument is that Section 69A already allows “all ministries, state governments and police” to request emergency content blocks through proper channels, making additional mechanisms unnecessary and constitutionally problematic.
In response, the government has contended that X (formerly Twitter) has wrongly labelled the Sahyog portal as a tool for censorship.
The company’s main target is the government’s Sahyog Portal, which it argues represents an unconstitutional expansion of blocking powers to thousands of officials who lack proper authority.
“On MeitY’s instructions, the MHA created the Censorship Portal for central ministries, state agencies and thousands of local police officers to issue takedown orders under S.79(3)(b), using MeitY’s Template Blocking Orders,” X stated.
It also targeted Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, under which, it stated, executive officers from central ministries including home affairs, defence, railways and finance, as well as police officials across more than 30 states and union territories, have been authorised to issue takedown orders through the portal.
X argued in the submission this dual system violates constitutional principles including fairness, separation of powers and the rule of law.
The Karnataka High Court will hear the case next on July 11.
