The original petition, filed in March, had sought the court to declare that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000 does not authorise the government to issue information blocking orders to intermediaries, or social media platforms, like X.
Section 79(3)(b) provides for authorities to remove immunity from liability accorded to intermediaries if they failed to comply with orders to take down unlawful content. In conjunction with Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, it also allows them to issue takedown orders.
On Tuesday, senior counsel KG Raghavan, appearing for X, informed Justice M Nagaprasanna of the high court that he had filed a plea to amend the original petition. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who represented the government, said he has filed objections based on the merits of the proposed amendment but has no objections in allowing the petition to be amended.
In a written statement filed on June 30, the government opposed challenging the constitutionality of the rule at “this late stage”.
Justice Nagaprasanna allowed X to file its amended petition in two days and fixed July 8 for the final hearing.
X is seeking the court to declare Rule 3(1)(d) unconstitutional for being ultra vires (exceeding the remit) of the IT Act, or at least read it down and to declare that it does not grant the state any blocking powers. It also wants the court to hold that the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre’s (I4C) Sahyog portal is ultra vires of the IT Act and/or is unconstitutional.
The union home ministry had developed the Sahyog portal to automate the process of sending notices to intermediaries by the government or its agencies.
In its March petition, X also sought protection for not joining the Sahyog portal as well as not complying with the notices sent via the portal. It had also argued that the government could issue content takedown orders only under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000 and not Section 79(3)(b).
