Back
seeks modification of direction on in PIL
Social media intermediary (formerly Twitter) on Friday moved the seeking a modification of the court’s direction requiring it to onboard the Centre’s . The application was filed in a pending that raises concerns over the “sharp and alarming rise” in and circulating on digital platforms. A division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice DN Ray heard preliminary submissions and posted the matter for further hearing on , directing to file its reply and all other private respondents to respond by that date.
The PIL, initiated by , had prompted the court on to call upon social media intermediaries to respond to affidavits filed by the and the regarding the practical implementation of the legislative framework for obligations under the , as amended by the . The court had also specifically directed intermediaries to ensure they onboard the to facilitate timely action and better coordination with law enforcement agencies.
’s and Submissions
When the matter was taken up, the bench first inquired about the current position. , counsel for the PIL petitioner, submitted that though the had already filed a response, the private respondents—social media intermediaries—were yet to reply. Counsel for then informed the court that the platform had filed an application seeking modification of the order “insofar as it directs social media intermediaries to onboard the .” The counsel added that ’s full reply was “in transit from the USA” and would be filed shortly.
’s counsel further linked the matter to pending proceedings before other High Courts and the . “It has come to my attention that the Union has moved a before the because there are petitions pending. One of our appeals before the division bench is pending which raised similar issues. The has issued notice on the and, in respect of those matters, has stayed the proceedings in one or two of them,” the counsel said. He added that since the subject matter overlaps, he was placing that fact before the court as a matter of propriety.
Context of the ’s Stay
Last month, the stayed proceedings in cases pending before the Karnataka and Bombay High Courts challenging the constitutional validity of the and the powers under the for takedown of online content. The apex court passed this order while hearing transfer petitions filed by the , which sought to consolidate four proceedings—including a petition by in the and another by (an organisation of digital news portals), as well as petitions by comedian Kunal Kamra and in the .
Despite the ’s stay of those related matters, the decided to proceed with the present PIL. It noted that advocates had appeared for , , , , and , and directed all of them to file their responses by the next date. The bench observed that it would hear on its after the platform files its reply.
Other Respondents and Submissions
, appearing for , submitted that the platform would file a response within two weeks. informed the court that it had filed an application for substitution of in place of Google, which was allowed. The court acknowledged the appearances and directed all respondents to file their counter-affidavits or applications by .
Legal Framework and the
The is an initiative of the designed to streamline communication between law enforcement agencies and social media intermediaries for content takedown and user data requests. Under the , intermediaries are required to observe , including the removal of unlawful content upon receiving a court order or a direction from a government agency. The order specifically referenced , which provides a for intermediaries subject to their compliance with such directions.
’s objection to onboarding the portal appears to centre on concerns over transparency, potential overreach, and the lack of procedural safeguards. The company has previously challenged similar mandates in the , arguing that the portal creates an unchecked mechanism for content censorship without adequate judicial oversight. The ’s stay in the transfer petitions indicates that the constitutional validity of the itself may ultimately be decided at the highest level.
Implications for Intermediaries and Content Regulation
The ’s ongoing PIL has significant implications for all social media platforms operating in India. If the court upholds the direction to onboard the , it would set a precedent not only for but for all intermediaries. The case tests the balance between the government’s interest in curbing harmful content—especially AI-generated deepfakes—and the platforms’ concerns about procedural due process and potential misuse.
For legal professionals, the interplay between the Gujarat PIL and the pending transfer petitions creates a complex jurisdictional landscape. ’s strategy of seeking modification in Gujarat while simultaneously pursuing the appeal in Karnataka suggests a coordinated effort to resist uniform compliance. The outcome could influence the interpretation of “” under the IT Rules and shape the future of content moderation in India.
Conclusion
The has set as the next date for hearing the PIL and ’s . In the interim, all eyes are on the ’s transfer petitions, which may ultimately determine the fate of the mandate. For now, the Gujarat proceedings offer a microcosm of the broader legal battle over , , and the boundaries of government regulation in the digital age. Legal practitioners should monitor these developments closely, as they will likely produce critical guidance on the scope of Section 79(3)(b) and the enforceability of government portals for content takedown.
