Centre flags possible loss of safe harbour for X Corp over non-removal of Rana Ayyub's 'derogatory' posts

The Centre has informed the Delhi High Court that X Corp’s alleged failure to remove posts made by journalist Rana Ayyub allegedly insulting Hindu deities, despite judicial directions and police notices, could amount to non-compliance that may result in the loss of its safe harbour protection in India.

According to a Live Law report, in an affidavit filed before the court, the government and Delhi Police submitted that the platform did not act even after receiving what they described as “actual knowledge” through a judicial order and statutory notices issued by law enforcement authorities.

The matter was heard by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav in a petition filed by Amita Sachdeva, who has sought the removal of the posts, alleging they are derogatory, inflammatory and communally sensitive, including content purportedly insulting Hindu deities.

According to the submissions, X Corp has continued to host the content despite being formally directed to take it down, raising questions over compliance with intermediary obligations under Indian law and the applicability of safe harbour protections.

“It is apposite to note that such inaction amounts to non-compliance with the due diligence requirements provided for in the applicable Rules and facilitates continues commission of unlawful acts by its user i.e. Rana Ayyub and a consequence thereof the protection of safe harbor available to the intermediary available under Section 79(1) is liable to be withdrawn,” Live Law quoted the Centre as saying.

X told the Delhi High Court that the petition against it is not maintainable as the platform is not “the State” under Article 12 of the Constitution and does not perform a public function to be subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

It argued that the court should not examine whether the posts are unlawful in writ proceedings and that the petitioner should instead have filed a civil suit.

X further submitted that if the content is to be acted upon, the court should direct authorities to follow due procedure under the Information Technology (Blocking Rules), 2009 and issue a blocking order under Section 69A, or alternatively direct takedown action against the original author, journalist Rana Ayyub.

In response, the Central government informed the court that the Delhi Police had already sent a request on April 9 to the Ministry seeking blocking of Ayyub’s tweets, which is under consideration and will be processed as per the IT Blocking Rules, 2009.

“It is submitted that the Union of India under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 has already initiated the proceedings in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the Designated Officer appointed under Rule 03, upon being satisfied that the circumstances warrant invocation of emergency powers under Rule 09, shall taken an appropriate decision which shall be placed before this Hon’ble Court,” the Centre said.

Earlier, the court had observed that action was necessary in view of allegedly derogatory, inflammatory and communal tweets by Ayyub, noting that an FIR had already been directed against her by a competent court.

During Friday’s hearing, Advocate Vrinda Grover and Advocate Soutik Banerjee appeared for Ayyub and questioned the maintainability of the petition, while ASG Chetan Sharma represented the Union Government and submitted that the matter was being processed in accordance with law.

The court directed the Delhi Police to comply with its interim order as per law and granted Ayyub liberty to file a reply, including on the issue of maintainability. The matter has been listed for further hearing on May 19.

The petition filed by Amita Sachdeva seeks removal of six X posts made between 2013 and 2017, alleging they insult Hindu deities, defame Veer Savarkar, and the Indian Army, and are communally sensitive. She had earlier approached X’s Grievance Appellate Committee, which declined relief on the ground that the matter was sub judice.

Sachdeva has argued that the continued availability of the posts violates judicial directions, affects religious sentiments, and disturbs communal harmony, despite exhaustion of remedies under the IT Rules, 2021.

The case also follows a prior trial court order which found prima facie cognisable offences under Sections 153A, 295A and 505 of the Indian Penal Code and directed registration of an FIR against Ayyub.

With inputs from agencies