It is rather ironical that soon after Prime Minister Modi went calling at the White House, and after all the bonhomie with President Donald Trump and his Lieutenant Elon Musk, the Indian government is now in a spat with two important commercial Musk platforms. The issue: freedom of speech and expression.
In a second legal encounter with the government, the Elon Musk-owned ‘X’ has filed a suit in the Karnataka High Court alleging the Union government is using “an impermissible parallel mechanism” to block online content without proper judicial process, and in violation of the Information Technology Act. After an initial hearing, the matter has been posted for 3 April.
Earlier, in June 2023, the Karnataka High Court dismissed Twitter's (now X) plea against the Centre's orders to block certain social media accounts and tweets. The high court imposed a fine of Rs 50 lakh on the company for non-compliance with the Indian government's orders.
Choking rules
In its fresh suit, X has pointed out Section 69A of the IT Act, passed in October 2000, gives the IT ministry the right to remove online content deemed to be a threat to the country’s national security, or to public decorum. However by way of safeguards, there are “blocking rules” wherein the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology (MeitY) is required to examine the content and pass a reasoned order whether censorship is warranted.
Thereafter, the government introduced the ‘Sahyog Portal’, a new mechanism to delete or block content under Section 79 (3)(b) of the IT Act. Managed by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), it enables state police and various government departments to issue takedown requests directly, bypassing due process under Section 69A. This creates a parallel framework for content censorship, allowing thousands of officials to order content removals without transparency or oversight, X has said in its plea.
As an example, the railway ministry earlier this year ordered X to take down over 200 videos recording a stampede which occurred in New Delhi in February killing hundreds. Linking such a take-down to ‘security of the nation’ or ‘public decorum’ does seem tenuous.
In recent weeks and months, the friction between X and the government has sharpened with Musk’s AI chatbot ‘Grok3’ taking social media by storm. What can’t be said freely is referred to Grok for an answer; and the AI assistant never disappoints. Its chatty and disruptive answers range from the number of press conferences the PM has held, to Gandhi assassin Nathuram Godse and comedian Kunal Kamra.
It is a piquant situation. So far government monitors are handling X-related posts with kids gloves, given the sensitive relations with Washington. But things could get tougher.
On the other hand, ‘X’ can only be a robust communication platform if it allows for a free flow of news and opinions without constant censorship. X’s executives realize India is an important market, but government control and frequent takedowns will take away subscribers, and ruin its commercial value.
Twitter was born from the womb of the US’ First Amendment. It’s a democratic tradition that provides constitutional guarantees to fundamental rights, something even the Trump administration cannot take away. But the question now is: can ‘X’ insist on the same ‘First Amendment’ yardstick for India?
Local internet hub?
Then there is the case of Starlink. Elon Musk’s satellite-based internet services have successfully bid for spectrum and are now awaiting the final operational nod. After initially trying to muscle out Starlink, Reliance Jio and Airtel have now inked separate pacts with the SpaceX subsidiary to become operational partners.
For Starlink, India will be a key market to monetize its large satellite capacity as it does not have access to either Russia or China - the two other big land masses. Low-earth satellite constellation operators (LEO) typically target countries with large swathes of land and population to unlock capacity. Currently Starlink has less than 5 million subscribers, and India has the potential of adding 5.7 million in the next 5 years.
The one big hold up whether Starlink will agree to the the Union government’s demand for setting up a control centre in India to enable suspension or shutting communication operations. Satellite communication, like other communication channels, have to bow to government oversight to allow for operational shutdowns at the time of public disturbances or when there is a law and order situation.
Police enforced internet shutdowns, like in Kashmir and Manipur, have been common to disable communication devices in the hands of ‘troublemakers’. The telecom law has even provisions which allows government personnel to take “temporary possession” of a communication channel in a public emergency or for disaster management.
While the logic and the law for a India-based control centre is in place, and it will be a key condition to Starlink getting its final green signal, one will have to watch whether the company is ready to accept these conditions. It has been examining the government playbook for a while, but there has been no word either way. And if Starlink says ‘no, will the government make an exception?
Starlink, a unit of SpaceX, is headquartered in Redmond, Washington, where it has its research and command centre. It has a global internet footprint based on constellations of satellites operated centrally from the US. How will the story unfold in India? Is the demand for a local control centre a deal breaker?