The Centre has informed the Karnataka High Court that X Corp. is attempting to mislead the court" about the law used to direct social media platforms to block access to harmful content.
In an affidavit filed before the Karnataka High Court, the government has said that X’s decision to call the government's Sahyog portal a ‘censorship portal’ is unfortunate and condemnable, according to the Bar and Bench.
Earlier, X Corp, which runs the micro-blogging platform X (formerly Twitter), has told the Delhi High Court that it cannot be compelled to come onboard the SAHYOG portal, which apparently aims to combat cybercrime, arguing that it “has its own portal to process valid legal requests”, The Hindu reported.
Pointing to the Supreme Court’s judgement in the Shreya Singal vs. Union of India case, X Corp argued that the portal falls outside the statutory scheme of Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, which gives the government power to order online platforms to block information in specific circumstances, the daily reported.
On Friday, in a statement filed before the Karnataka High Court, the Centre, according to The Hindu, said that X is "falsely alleging that authorities are passing information blocking orders" under Section 79 (3) (d) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in a bid to circumvent a Supreme Court judgement that only allows such orders to be issued under Section 69A of the same law.
In a detailed statement of objections before the High Court of Karnataka in response to the petition filed by Elon Musk's X Corp contending ‘unlawful information blocking regime’, the government stated that the petitioner had misdirected itself between the regimes under 69A and 79(3) (b) of the Information Technology Act.
X has urged the court to direct that Section 79(3)(b) does not authorise the government to issue information blocking orders in circumvention of Section 69A, the Blocking Rules, and the Supreme Court decision in the Shreya Singhal case, according to the Deccan Herald.
"It is evident, the Deccan Herald report added, from the statutory scheme of Section 69A that it permits information-blocking orders only on narrowly tailored grounds and also contemplates multiple safeguards for online content blocking. However, such safeguards are inbuilt in the scheme of Section 69A because the power conferred upon the central government (via the designated officer) is to issue "blocking orders" which are fundamentally different to the issuance of notices by the authorised agencies and its nodal officers under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000," the government said.