Social media company X is suing the union government for violating the IT Act

By claiming that it infringes upon protections under Section 69A, X has contested the government's use of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) to control and delete content from social media.

Regarding Sections 79(3)(b) and 79

• Section 79: Offers safe harbor protection to intermediaries, shielding them from liability for user-generated content.
• Section 79(3)(b) removes safe harbor protection if an intermediary does not forbid or remove unlawful content after being alerted by the government.

Regarding Section 69A

The government may only impose content prohibitions under Section 69A on the basis of the "reasonable constraints" on the right to free speech specified in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

Singhal Shreya's verdict: Only a court order or the described process provided under Section 69A or a court order.

MeitY Directive (2023)

Section 79(3)(b) allowed for the issuance of information blocking orders, according to a directive sent to all ministries, state governments, and law enforcement agencies.

In 2024, MeitY launched a "Sahyog" platform that gave the previously mentioned authorities the ability to upload and impose blocking orders.

Concerns X brought up

Misuse of Section 79(3)(b): It does not give the government actual blocking power; rather, it only outlines the situations in which an intermediary loses its "safe harbour" status.

Breach of Shreya Singhal's ruling: MeitY's regulation circumvents the procedural protections established by the Supreme Court by treating Section 79(3)(b) as a content-blocking mechanism rather than adhering to Section 69A.