February 11, 2026 06:10 pm (IST)
Follow us:
facebook-white sharing button
twitter-white sharing button
instagram-white sharing button
youtube-white sharing button
Bangladesh poll manifestos mirror India’s welfare schemes as BNP, Jamaat bet big on women, freebies | Drama ends: Pakistan makes U-turn on India boycott, to play T20 World Cup clash as per schedule | ‘Won’t allow any impediment in SIR’: Supreme Court pulls up Mamata govt over delay in sharing officers’ details | India-US trade deal: ‘Negotiations always two-way’, says Amul MD amid farmers’ concerns | Khamenei breaks 37-year-old ritual for first time amid escalating Iran-US tensions | India must push for energy independence amid global uncertainty: Vedanta chairman Anil Agarwal | Kanpur horror: Lamborghini driven by businessman’s son rams vehicles, injures six | ‘Namaste Trump beat Howdy Modi’: Congress slams PM Over India-US trade deal | Historic India-US trade pact: Tariffs cut, $500B market opportunity unlocked! | Big call from RBI: Repo rate stays at 5.25%, neutral stance continues
Photo: wikipedia.org

Karnataka HC dismisses X Corp’s challenge to govt’s content-blocking authority

| @indiablooms | Sep 24, 2025, at 09:30 pm

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday rejected a petition by Elon Musk’s X Corp, formerly known as Twitter, which sought to challenge the authority of government officials to issue information blocking orders.

The court underscored the necessity of regulating social media, particularly to prevent offences against women.

“Social media needs to be regulated, and its regulation is a must, more so in cases of offences against women, in particular, failing which the right to dignity, as ordained in the Constitution of a citizen gets railroaded,” the court nored, reported NDTV.

X Corp had argued that Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, did not empower officials to issue blocking orders.

Instead, the company maintained that only Section 69A, read with the IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, offered the proper legal framework.

The platform had also sought to prevent ministries from taking coercive action based on Section 79(3)(b) and requested interim protection from joining the government’s Sahyog portal.

After months of hearings, which concluded in late July, the court delivered its order, rejecting X Corp’s claims.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna emphasised that regulation of information and communication has long been a matter of governance, regardless of medium, stating: “Information and communication, its spread or speed has never been left unchecked and unregulated. It has always been a subject matter of regulation.”

The court further cautioned against applying American judicial reasoning to the Indian context, observing that the U.S. approach to free speech cannot simply be transplanted onto India’s constitutional framework.

The Centre had opposed X Corp’s plea, arguing that unlawful or illegal content does not enjoy the same constitutional protections as legitimate 

Support Our Journalism

We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism

IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.

Support objective journalism for a small contribution.