Overview
The Union Government has informed the Delhi High Court that X Corp (formerly Twitter) has not complied with judicial and police orders to delete tweets by journalist Rana Ayyub that allegedly insult Hindu deities. The government argues that this non‑compliance breaches the due‑diligence obligations under Section 79(1) and may lead to withdrawal of safe‑harbour protection.
Key Developments
- Centre filed an affidavit before Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav stating that X Corp ignored a court order and Delhi Police notices.
- The petition by Amita Sachdeva seeks deletion of six tweets (2013‑2017) that allegedly violate Sections 153A, 295A, 505 of the IPC.
- X Corp contends it is not a "State" under Article 12 and therefore not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
- The government has asked the court to direct the Delhi Police to invoke Section 69A and follow the IT Blocking Rules, 2009 for a blocking order.
- Delhi Police submitted a request on 9 April 2026 to the Ministry for blocking the offending tweets, pending a decision by the Designated Officer under Rule 03.
Important Facts
The court earlier directed registration of an FIR against Ayyub, noting prima‑facie offences under the IPC sections mentioned above. Sachdeva, a self‑described follower of Sanatan Dharma, filed a complaint on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, leading to the FIR. X Corp’s Grievance Appellate Committee rejected relief, citing the matter as sub‑judice. The petitioner also invoked the IT Intermediary Guidelines, 2021, arguing that all remedial steps under Rules 3(2) and 3A have been exhausted.
Exam Relevance
This case illustrates the interplay between constitutional provisions (Articles 12 & 226), statutory safeguards (Sections 79(1) & 69A of the IT Act), and criminal law (IPC Sections 153A, 295A, 505). Aspirants should note how safe‑harbour protection is conditional on compliance with due‑diligence norms, and how the government can invoke blocking powers when content threatens public order. The episode also underscores the role of the judiciary in balancing freedom of expression with communal harmony, a recurring theme in GS 2 (Polity) and GS 4 (Ethics).
Way Forward
The matter is listed for hearing on 19 May 2026. Potential outcomes include: (i) issuance of a blocking order under Section 69A; (ii) removal of the specific tweets by X Corp; or (iii) withdrawal of safe‑harbour protection, exposing X Corp to civil and criminal liability. Aspirants should monitor the final judgment to understand precedent‑setting interpretations of intermediary liability in India.