X challenges Indian IT Act provision after Gujarat Police repeatedly sought Adani-related post removals

X, formerly known as Twitter, has filed documents with the Karnataka High Court challenging the use of Section 79(3)(b) of India's Information Technology Act (IT Act) and associated rules. The company alleges that the Gujarat Police has repeatedly employed this disputed provision to direct the removal of posts critical of industrialist Gautam Adani and, in some instances, Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

These filings, submitted on July 28, are part of X's broader legal challenge against the application of Section 79(3)(b) read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, for issuing content takedown notices. X argues that the Gujarat Police notices illustrate how Section 79(3)(b) has evolved into a parallel content removal mechanism, lacking the procedural safeguards present in Section 69A of the IT Act. The company contends that authorities are using the provision to compel intermediaries to remove content by citing concerns like misinformation and public order, bypassing the statutory blocking process under Section 69A.

The challenge also targets the establishment of the Sahyog portal by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), which facilitates such takedown requests. X's submissions include at least seven takedown notices signed by Gujarat Police Inspector General Bipin Ahire. These notices reportedly targeted posts discussing Adani Group's mining projects, alleging Adani and the BJP government's responsibility for heatwaves, and inquiries into potential corporate acquisitions. One specific instance cited involved an AI-generated image depicting Prime Minister Modi carrying Adani.

X has characterized the targeted content as newsworthy and political speech, encompassing reporting on deforestation, environmental protests, corporate affairs, and political criticism. Gujarat Police, however, justified the takedown requests by stating the posts spread false or misleading information capable of disturbing public order or eroding trust in institutions. Some notices also referred to amended IT Rules requiring disclosure of AI-generated content.

The case highlights a wider debate in India over the regulation of online speech. Legal experts and former government officials have expressed concerns that Section 79(3)(b) is being used as a potential censorship tool, lacking the safeguards of Section 69A. There are calls for greater transparency in the takedown process, with some arguing that publishing such orders would reveal the scale and nature of content moderation efforts.