The Indian Court rejects the argument of “freedom of expression” for X, and supports government powers

An Indian court rejected an attempt by Elon Musk X to challenge orders to displace the content of the Indian government, which ruled that the social media platform, as a foreign company, does not have a constitutional right to freedom of expression under Indian law.

On Wednesday, the Karnataka Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Indian government’s use of a central gate on the Internet to issue content orders, and specified that foreign platforms cannot call for the protection of freedom of expression under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. The court said that this constitution of freedom of expression applies only to Indian citizens. The decision represents an important moment in India’s firm approach to the organization of global technology companies.

X In MarchChallenge a series of orders of the Indian government that directs the platform to prohibit some accounts and jobs, including content criticizing official policies. At the heart of the conflict was the use of “”Sahyog– A government portal launched in October that allows the authorities to request social media companies directly to remove the content. Sahyog means “assistance” in Indian.

Article 19 of the Indian constitution, noble in its spirit and luminous in its promise, remains, however, the Charter of Rights granted to citizens only. He said In his decision, which was also broadcast, as the court refused to seek X.

This ruling comes as Musk expands a fingerprint in India beyond x, then recently Tesla operations launched and Securing the final organizational approval To serve it online online. The Nation of South Asia is a strategic bet for billionaire, as it includes the second largest Internet user base in the world after China and the government that is committed to achieving the adoption of 30 % of electric vehicles by 2030.

X did not respond to the comments request. There was no legal actor for X in India immediately to comment on the ruling.

Casim Rizvi, the founding director of the dialogue, a research center based in New Delhi, said that the ruling may improve coordination between the government and platforms, but he warned that “due care” should not become a blanket commitment to information technology, especially when this happens through the ruling, section 69 is an amount of chat. Prohibition, includes procedural protection.)

“To avoid unintended legal effects, the portal must work accurately as a coordination and collection class – a safe amount point and requests for requests, and any binding action must arise from a authority specialized under the IT law/rules.”

Content removal orders have increased in India over the past few years with more people online. Many cases of content removal via platforms – including X (previously Twitter), Facebook and Instagram – Get During farmers’ protests at the country level in 2020-2021. These protests have witnessed a large -scale activity on the social media that the government sought to control.

The federal government presented the SAYOG Gate last year to accelerate the removal of illegal content from social media, on the pretext that it will be an application of enforcement. Companies, including Microsoft, Google, Meta, Sharechat, and LinkedIn, have already incorporated the portal to remove content after receiving notifications through an automatic process resulting from the federal government or its agencies.

In February 2024, X stated that although it does not agree to the requests, it is Withhold some accounts In response to the executive directions of the Indian government. The company pointed out that the lack of compliance could have been subjected to “possible penalties, including large fines and prison.”

A legal expert, who works closely with technology companies and the Indian government, told politics and asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of their work, Techcrunch that Wednesday’s ruling was great. They said that the decision indicates that the courts are increasingly exposed to the regulation of the Internet and the technology policy through a political lens – and not just a legal.

Musk, who described himself as a “student of freedom of expression”, did not comment on the lawsuit and judgment, although he previously raised concerns about the laws of regulating Indian content.

“The rules in India for what can appear on social media are very strict, and we cannot bypass the laws of a country,” Musk He said In an interview 2023 with the BBC.

X can still appeal the Supreme Court ruling. However, some legal experts argue that it is unclear whether the company will receive favorable treatment, as the Supreme Court is likely to follow the same line of thinking in the Karnataka Supreme Court.

“The ruling has not tackled whether the government should have the authority to use a gateway to arrange content removal operations,” said an expert in technological policy, who asked not to be called because of its close relations with the Indian government and major technology companies.

The judge said that the court will issue the copy of the order on Thursday.