Last month, social media platform X filed a case in Indian court against the government around a platform called Sahyog, a state-owned digital tool. Sahyog automatically sends government notices to intermediaries like X and Facebook, requesting them to review or remove content. The Indian government says the tool is essential to tackle harmful online content. But X has referred to it as a ‘censorship portal’, setting the stage for a legal battle in an Indian court. Foreign and domestic tech firms – as well as freedom of speech activists – will be watching carefully.
In the southern state of Karnataka, X was asked via Sahyog to take down ‘hundreds of posts’ which show people dying in a massive crush at a major Hindu religious festival – a request which the platform is now contesting as a threat to freedom of speech. X is taking the Indian government to court to challenge Section 79(3)(b) of the Indian Information Technology Act, 2000, which allows Sahyog to moderate and order the removal of content on social media.
Indian legislation grants the government wider-ranging censorship powers than in the UK or EU. Crucially, under Section 69A of the 2021 Information Technology (IT) Act, the government may block content on social media and other media platforms on grounds including ‘the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India’.
Discussing that legislation in 2021, IT and Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad said: ‘we don’t have any issue when anyone criticizes the government of India’. But in 2023 the government was accused of censorship when it used the law to block all social media clips of a BBC documentary critical of prime minister Narendra Modi. The government described the documentary as a ‘propaganda piece’.
X CEO Elon Musk has historically refrained from criticizing the Indian government’s powers, arguing in 2023 that American principles cannot apply universally. Musk also maintains a seemingly robust relationship with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Given this, and the fact that X is simultaneously attempting to enter the Indian market with his two other companies, Tesla and Starlink, the timing of this lawsuit is particularly interesting. Observers will see the case as a test for the Indian government, which is attempting to marry its significant censorial oversight with a warm approach to tech investment, innovation, and AI governance.
Big tech meets big state
Under former CEO and founder Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s relationship with the Indian government was fraught with challenges, though since Musk’s takeover as CEO in 2022, this fractious relationship has been somewhat soothed.
In May 2021, Indian antiterrorism police visited Twitter’s (as it was then known) Delhi offices after the company marked tweets by an Indian politician as ‘manipulated media’. In 2022, Twitter took the government to court over the latter’s orders to block certain tweets. The court ruled against the company and fined them approximately £45,000 – a paltry sum, but nevertheless a firm rap on the knuckles.
In 2023, former CEO Jack Dorsey accused the Indian government of threatening to shut down the company’s offices and asking Twitter to censor journalists – allegations the Indian government denied.
Musk, by contrast, has demonstrated his willingness to work with the Indian government by complying with directives to block clips of the banned BBC documentary on Prime Minister Modi. And, despite some disagreement, X later banned accounts related to the 2021 Indian farmers’ protests against the Farm Bills passed by Parliament, claiming it was issued executive orders to do so.
Now, X’s pushback against Sahyog will be a lone battle. Companies such as Amazon, Google, and Meta have shown themselves willing to comply with Sahyog and adhere to the IT Act which spawned it.
Though Musk has referred to himself as a ‘free speech absolutist’, this case could be interpreted as more of a dispute over control. In an era of greater tech spending and growth, India wants to assert and defend its sovereignty and arguably its control over technology companies. This case will test that control.
The Musk Effect
Musk’s position is a difficult one: he will need to make hard decisions on what matters the most to him – namely, his various business interests or his government role – or risk losing battles on both fronts. He seems to recognize the peril, having made no public statement on the Indian case to date.
Outside India, reports claim X may soon receive major penalties from EU regulators for allegedly breaking the Digital Services Act. That would be seen as significant evidence of the EU’s commitment to holding big tech accountable to its regulatory framework – and a setback to Musk’s approach to content moderation. Such an enormous legal battle would require far greater firefighting from Musk and once again be complicated by his political and commercial interests.
President Donald Trump has indicated that Musk may shortly be on his way out of government. If this is indeed the case, the Modi administration will have far less to gain by courting him as part of a strategy to maintain bonds with the US.
Nevertheless, the closeness between Musk and President Trump – and the importance of a healthy working relationship between New Delhi and Washington – may lead to a softening of the repercussions on X for bringing this lawsuit.
And the winner is…
Despite the continuing threat of new US tariffs, India’s position is relatively secure. There is no reason to think New Delhi will treat X with kid gloves. Instead, the government can be expected to press its case vigorously, utilizing the wide-ranging regulatory powers which have led even typically supportive Indian media to refer to it as ‘a wolf in watchdog’s clothing’.
