COMPANIES

No Data Found

NEWS

No Data Found
Advertisement
Karnataka High Court defers hearing in Elon Musk's X Corp’s petition challenging government takedown orders

Karnataka High Court defers hearing in Elon Musk's X Corp’s petition challenging government takedown orders

The legal battle between X (formerly Twitter) and the Indian government over content takedown orders inches forward as the Karnataka High Court grants time for petition amendments.

Business Today Desk
Business Today Desk
  • Updated Apr 24, 2025 1:51 PM IST
Karnataka High Court defers hearing in Elon Musk's X Corp’s petition challenging government takedown ordersElon Musk, CEO of X

The Karnataka High Court has adjourned the hearing on a petition filed by X Corp, formerly known as Twitter, challenging the Indian government’s takedown directives issued under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act. The next hearing is now scheduled for July 1, 2025.

Senior advocate KG Raghavan, representing the Elon Musk-owned platform, requested the adjournment to file amendments to the original petition. “The petitioner wants to file applications seeking amendments,” he told the court. The government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, did not oppose the request and proposed a post-summer vacation date.

Advertisement

According to the court’s April 23 daily orders, X Corp must submit any applications to amend the petition within two weeks, with an advance copy to be served to the government. The government will then have three weeks to respond, while X has another three weeks to file its rejoinder.

X Corp initially filed its petition on March 5, arguing that the government’s use of Section 79(3)(b)—which revokes safe harbour protection for intermediaries that fail to take down flagged content—undermines the more specific powers laid out in Section 69A. The latter section provides a structured process for issuing blocking orders, including safeguards like reasoned orders and an opportunity to be heard.

At the April 3 hearing, X contended that bypassing Section 69A and acting under Section 79(3)(b) was legally unsound. “Section 69A is the repository of power for content blocking,” X’s counsel had argued.

Advertisement

The case is one of several legal and regulatory showdowns that have emerged as India tightens oversight of digital platforms, balancing free speech with national security and public order considerations.

For Unparalleled coverage of India's Businesses and Economy – Subscribe to Business Today Magazine

Published on: Apr 24, 2025 1:51 PM IST
    Post a comment