\n<\/p>\n
An Indian court has dismissed an attempt by Elon Musk\u2019s X to challenge the Indian government\u2019s content takedown orders, ruling that the social media platform, as a foreign company, does not have a constitutional right to free speech under Indian law.<\/p>\n
The Karnataka High Court ruled Wednesday in favor of the Indian government\u2019s use of a centralized online portal to issue content takedown orders, determining that foreign platforms cannot invoke free speech protections under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. The court said this constitutional of free expression applies only to Indian citizens. The decision marks a significant moment in India\u2019s increasingly assertive approach to regulating global tech companies.<\/p>\n
X filed the case in March<\/a>, challenging a series of Indian government orders directing the platform to block certain accounts and posts, including content critical of official policies. At the heart of the dispute was the use of \u201cSahyog<\/a>\u201d \u2014 a government portal launched in October that allows authorities to directly order social media companies to remove content. Sahyog means \u201cassistance\u201d in Hindi. X called it a \u201ccensorship portal\u201d and argued the process lacked transparency and violated principles of free expression.<\/p>\n \u201cArticle 19 of the Constitution of India, noble in its spirit and luminous in its promise, remains, nevertheless, a Charter of Rights conferred upon citizens only. The petitioner who seeks sanctuary under its canopy must be a citizen of the nation, failing which the protective embrace of Article 19 cannot be invoked,\u201d senior judge M Nagaprasanna said<\/a> in his ruling, which was also livestreamed, as the court rejected X\u2019s petition.<\/p>\n The ruling comes as Musk expands his footprint in India beyond X, having recently launched Tesla operations<\/a> and secured final regulatory approval<\/a> for his satellite internet service Starlink. The South Asian nation is a strategic bet for the billionaire, boasting the world\u2019s second-largest internet user base after China and a government committed to achieving 30% electric vehicle adoption by 2030.<\/p>\n X did not respond to a request for comments. A legal representative for X in India was not immediately available to comment on the ruling.<\/p>\n Kazim Rizvi, Founding Director of The Dialogue, a New Delhi-based think tank, said the ruling may improve coordination between the government and platforms, but cautioned that \u201cdue diligence\u201d should not become a blanket obligation to comply \u2014 especially when takedowns occur via a portal, rather than through the structured safeguards of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. (Section 69A is India\u2019s main law governing how the government can order content blocking, and it includes procedural protections.)<\/p>\n Techcrunch event<\/p>\n \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tSan Francisco<\/span> \u201cTo avoid unintended legal effects, the portal should operate strictly as a coordination and collection layer \u2014\u00a0a secure intake and routing point for requests, and any binding action should originate from a competent authority under the IT Act\/Rules,\u201d he told TechCrunch.<\/p>\n Content takedown orders have increased in India over the past few years as more people come online. Several instances of content removal across platforms \u2014 including X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, and Instagram \u2014 occurred<\/a> during the nationwide farmers\u2019 protests in 2020\u20132021. These protests saw widespread social media activity that the government sought to control.<\/p>\n The federal government introduced the Sahyog portal last year to expedite the removal of unlawful content from social media, arguing that it would streamline enforcement. Companies, including Microsoft, Google, Meta, ShareChat, and LinkedIn, have already integrated the portal to remove content after receiving notices through an automated process triggered by the federal government or its agencies.<\/p>\n In February 2024, X stated that, although it disagreed with the orders, it withheld certain accounts<\/a> in response to executive directives from the Indian government. Noncompliance, the company noted, could have exposed it to \u201cpotential penalties including significant fines and imprisonment.\u201d<\/p>\n A legal expert, who works closely with tech companies and the Indian government on policy matters and requested anonymity due to the sensitive nature of their work, told TechCrunch that Wednesday\u2019s ruling was significant. The decision shows that courts are increasingly viewing internet regulation and tech policy through a policy lens \u2014 not just a legal one, they said.<\/p>\n Musk, who has called himself a \u201cfree speech absolutist,\u201d has not commented on the lawsuit and ruling, though he previously raised concerns about Indian content regulation laws.<\/p>\n \u201cThe rules in India for what can appear on social media are quite strict, and we can\u2019t go beyond the laws of a country,\u201d Musk said<\/a> in a 2023 interview with the BBC.<\/p>\n X can still appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. However, some legal experts argue that it is unclear whether the company would receive favorable treatment, as the top court is likely to follow the same line of reasoning as the Karnataka High Court.<\/p>\n \u201cThe ruling didn\u2019t address whether the government should even have the power to use a portal for ordering content takedowns,\u201d said a tech policy expert, who requested not to be named due to their close ties with the Indian government and major tech firms.<\/p>\n The court will release the order\u2019s copy on Thursday, the judge said.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t|<\/span>
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tOctober 27-29, 2025<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n