X told the Karnataka High Court that Gujarat Police issued at least seven takedown notices targeting posts critical of Gautam Adani. The platform argues these notices used a disputed IT Act provision to bypass established content blocking procedures. This challenge spotlights how Section 79(3)(b) is weaponized against political and corporate speech.
How We Got Here
X filed these documents on July 28 as part of its ongoing writ appeal against specific IT Act provisions. The company previously challenged the use of Section 79(3)(b) read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology Rules, 2021 for content removal.
The Numbers
- The seven takedown notices submitted by X were all signed by Gujarat's Inspector General of Police Bipin Ahire.
- Gujarat Police alleged one post, an AI-generated image of PM Modi carrying Adani, was an "undisclosed deepfake capable of disturbing public order."
- X argues Section 79(3)(b) is evolving into a "parallel content removal mechanism" with fewer procedural safeguards than Section 69A of the IT Act.
- Targeted posts included discussions on environmental issues like the Hasdeo forest, government policy, and business developments involving figures like Anil Agarwal.
- X also challenged the constitutionality of Rule 3(1)(d) and the I4C's Sahyog portal, which facilitates these takedown notices.
What Happens Next
🇮🇳 Why This Matters for India
For product managers building social platforms and founders launching user-generated content apps in Bangalore, this case sets critical precedents on intermediary liability and the legal frameworks for online speech.
The Take
The core issue here is the unchecked power state police forces currently wield over online speech. Expect the Karnataka High Court's eventual ruling to significantly clarify the legal limits on takedown notices issued under Section 79(3)(b).
Source:
MediaNama ↗