The Karnataka High Court has postponed the final hearing of a case filed by social media platform X (formerly Twitter), which is challenging the government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act to block online content. The matter will now be heard on July 1.

According to The Economic Times, X’s legal counsel, KG Raghavan, requested the delay to allow the platform time to file applications for amending the existing petition. During the proceedings, Raghavan asked for a date post the court’s summer vacation. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, did not object and suggested July 1 as the next hearing date, which the court accepted.

The High Court directed that all amendment applications must be filed within two weeks and shared in advance with the government. The Centre will then have three weeks to submit its response. X also informed the court that it intends to file a rejoinder to the Centre’s objections, for which the court granted another three weeks.

In a previous hearing held on April 3, the court had denied interim relief to X. Justice M Nagaprasanna stated that there was no immediate reason for the platform to fear coercive action from the government and advised that X could approach the court again if such action were taken.

The core of the case lies in X’s challenge to the government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) for content blocking. The platform argues that the provision contradicts the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Shreya Singhal case, which stipulates that content can only be blocked under Section 69A of the IT Act or via court order.

X also criticized the Centre’s Sahyog portal—used to issue content takedown notices—as a “Censorship Portal.” The platform argued that there is no legal mandate for the portal’s creation or the appointment of a nodal officer to manage it.

In its rebuttal, the government defended the Sahyog portal, calling X’s characterization “unfortunate” and “condemnable.” The Centre maintained that X has misunderstood the IT Act’s provisions. It clarified that while Section 69A authorizes blocking of content under specified conditions and includes safeguards, Section 79(3)(b) merely requires intermediaries to act upon notices from law enforcement or authorized agencies. Furthermore, while Section 69A includes legal penalties for non-compliance, Section 79 deals with the conditions under which intermediaries can claim safe harbour protections.

The Karnataka High Court has postponed the final hearing of a case filed by social media platform X (formerly Twitter), which is challenging the government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act to block online content. The matter will now be heard on July 1.

According to The Economic Times, X’s legal counsel, KG Raghavan, requested the delay to allow the platform time to file applications for amending the existing petition. During the proceedings, Raghavan asked for a date post the court’s summer vacation. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, did not object and suggested July 1 as the next hearing date, which the court accepted.

The High Court directed that all amendment applications must be filed within two weeks and shared in advance with the government. The Centre will then have three weeks to submit its response. X also informed the court that it intends to file a rejoinder to the Centre’s objections, for which the court granted another three weeks.

In a previous hearing held on April 3, the court had denied interim relief to X. Justice M Nagaprasanna stated that there was no immediate reason for the platform to fear coercive action from the government and advised that X could approach the court again if such action were taken.

The core of the case lies in X’s challenge to the government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) for content blocking. The platform argues that the provision contradicts the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Shreya Singhal case, which stipulates that content can only be blocked under Section 69A of the IT Act or via court order.

X also criticized the Centre’s Sahyog portal—used to issue content takedown notices—as a “Censorship Portal.” The platform argued that there is no legal mandate for the portal’s creation or the appointment of a nodal officer to manage it.

In its rebuttal, the government defended the Sahyog portal, calling X’s characterization “unfortunate” and “condemnable.” The Centre maintained that X has misunderstood the IT Act’s provisions. It clarified that while Section 69A authorizes blocking of content under specified conditions and includes safeguards, Section 79(3)(b) merely requires intermediaries to act upon notices from law enforcement or authorized agencies. Furthermore, while Section 69A includes legal penalties for non-compliance, Section 79 deals with the conditions under which intermediaries can claim safe harbour protections.