X factor: On the X appeal in the Karnataka High Court

That the use of Internet shutdowns and arbitrary curbs on free speech on social media have become a rampant tool for those in power is evident in the manner in which the Bharatiya Janata Party-led State governments of Haryana and Rajasthan and the Union government have dealt with the farmer protests. These State governments have used Internet shutdowns arbitrarily, and without adequate cause, using vague reasons related to the prospective breakdown of law and order and without any actual evidence to implement such shutdowns, thus failing the proportionality tests laid out in Anuradha Bhasin vs Union of India. The Union government, on the other hand, has used its oft-deployed device of issuing notices to social media companies such as X to block the accounts of those leading or even supporting the protests without even issuing the reasons to those who hold these accounts. In the past, X, when it was known as Twitter, did not accede to all blocking requests unless they ran afoul of its own rules or were not sufficiently issued with recorded reasons among other considerations. Twitter/X had also approached the Karnataka High Court to challenge several of the blanket blocking orders that were issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology during the earlier round of farmer protests in 2020-21. The High Court had, in a problematic judgment by a single judge, dismissed X’s petition, but later admitted an appeal by the firm and hearings are under way.

Unfortunately, X, ever since Elon Musk’s takeover, has not been publishing its transparency reports that indicate the number of legal requests made by Indian state agencies to block, take down content or accounts. By admitting that it has decided to withhold accounts and posts flagged by the government, even if it disagreed with these actions, X was giving up any recourse for its users affected by these actions. This is not unexpected; X under Mr. Musk is no longer a thriving platform for free speech that strives to promote discussion, information-sharing and even critique of governments. It now takes its cue from the views and business interests of its owner. But it is even more worrisome that the extant judgment in the Karnataka High Court has given credence to the idea that government authorities enjoy a wide berth in issuing content blocking orders without the need to provide notices to the originators of the content or even seeking account-level blocking without valid reasoning. It is hoped that X’s appeal in the High Court will definitively clarify the rights and obligations of social media companies over content on its platforms. As for the government, it does not seem to be concerned at all about what such actions mean to India’s reputation as a free, open and democratic society, a key reason for social media companies to operate in the country, beyond just the presence of a large consumer base.