The Central government has taken strong exception to the censorship claims made by Elon Musk owned social media platform X (formerly Twitter). .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. As per the affidavit, use of such terminology is erroneous and inappropriate and X is raising groundless concerns about censorship. “It is submitted that by raising a groundless concern of censorship, the petitioner is attempting conflate its position with that of a user who posts content on its platform, which it is not. It is submitted that the use of the said terminology by a worldwide portal like “X” is unfortunate and condemnable,” the government said. The affidavit was filed in response to X’s plea challenging the creation and use of Sahyog portal, an online platform that allows agencies to issue information-blocking orders without adhering to the safeguards mandated by Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). X moved the High Court arguing that the Sahyog portal and related government actions circumvent the statutory framework established by the IT Act and the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. .However, the government has challenged X’s assertion that Section 79 of the IT Act merely exempts the intermediaries from the liability for third-party content and does not empower the government to issue information blocking order in violation of section 69A. “It is submitted that the ostensible purpose of the present petition appears to the blanket right to claim safe harbour protections without any responsibility on the intermediary themselves. It is submitted that the same is fundamentally flawed and against the basic concept of safe harbour itself,” the government stressed. According to the government, X, being a foreign entity, does not have fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the constitution. “The only statutory right it has is conferred to it under Section 79 of the IT Act 2000, which does not empower it to solicit hosting or defend removal of the information & data of third party hosted on its platform. It is submitted that the intermediary as per the scheme of the IT Act has no right or locus, at all, to take up the case of its users against any orders passed by the competent authority under section 79 of the Act or else it loses its safe harbour protection.”The High Court has been told that the safe harbour protection granted by Section 79 of the IT Act is not absolute. “It is submitted that the concept of “safe harbour” is intrinsically hedged with responsibilities which are placed on intermediary. It is submitted that therefore, “safe harbour” is always a conditional protection, available only when due diligence is demonstrably exercised by any intermediary. It is submitted that the same is not a constitutional right, not a part of Article 19(1)(a) and totally a function of local prevailing statute in any country where the intermediary is operating,” the government affidavit has stated.
