Center Defends It Act: The central government strongly objected to the social media platform X calling the cooperation portal a censorship tool. The government has described it as unfortunate and condemnable. In a detailed reply to the Karnataka High Court, the Center denied the claims made by the X Corp in the petition challenging India’s information blockage structure.

The government claimed that the petitioner misinterpreted the provisions of the Information Technology (IT) Act, especially sections 69A and 79 (3) (B). The X Corp has argued that Section 79 (3) (B) order to block the material in such a way that the security measures mentioned in Section 69A, the rules related to blocking the material and the Shreya Singhal case should be sidelined by the Supreme Court’s decision.

What argument did the government present

The government has argued that Section 69A clearly allows the center to issue a blockage order under specific circumstances and also gives several security measures to ban online material. The government said that Section 69A is quite different from Section 79 (3) (B). He said that under Section 79 (3) (B), the mediators need to fulfill their obligations only when notices are received from the authorized agency.

The Center said, “The outline of Section 79 does not authorize” blocking order “. Instead, it only informs the mediators about their responsibilities. ”He argued that Section 69A gives the right to block access to information with legal results if he does not comply with the government, while Section 79 determines the conditions under which the mediated can claim protection.”

Government defends cooperation portal

According to the government, ‘X Corp’ made a mistake by telling the obstruction orders issued under Section 69A as a notice issued under Section 79 (3) (B), while the Supreme Court has already given the difference between the two in the Shreya Singhal case. Referring to the concerns of X, the government defended the cooperation portal and described it as a convenient mechanism designed to effective the coordination between mediators and law enforcement agencies.

The Center insisted that this portal provides a structured platform to ensure quick action against illegal online material and benefits both the mediators and investigating officers. The statement said, “It is misleading to call cooperation a censorship tool. By doing this, the petitioner is incorrectly introducing himself as a material maker rather than the mediator. Such a claim of global platform like X is very regrettable and unacceptable. ”

The government also said that being a foreign commercial unit, ‘X’ does not have any underlying right to provide or defend third party content on its platform. He emphasized that in one of the earlier cases of Twitter, the Karnataka High Court had clearly ruled that Articles 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution do not apply to the company. With this reply, the Center has reiterated its stance that the existing legal structure on information interception is well defined and specific.

Also read: Elon Musk’s company ‘X’ sued the Government of India, said- Blocks are using IT Act

Grok Row: Allen Musk’s AI Chatbot Grok (Grok) is being discussed all around these days. People are asking strange and unnecessary questions from the grouke. Surprisingly, Groke is also giving equally strange answer, which people are sharing on social media. The number of such people has increased in the last few days. In such a situation, the government has also made up its mind to take action.

According to the Times of India report, official sources say that asking Groke to ask such questions, which cause inflammatory reactions, in such cases, criminal action can be taken against the users as well as the platform. This action can be of the same type in which the Central Government had told X (East Twitter) that it needs to follow the country’s law on the request to remove the content.

X has earlier turned Karnataka High Court

Elon Musk’s X in the case has already moved to the Karnataka High Court against the order of the Government of India. The company says that the government’s action is illegal. By doing this, freedom of expression is being suppressed. At the same time, the government says that X will have to follow the law.

The case will be heard on March 27

The X says that under Section 79 (3) (B) of the Information Technology Act, the government does not have the right to block the content. In the petition prescribed for the hearing on March 27, it has been demanded that Section 79 (3) (B) does not give the government the power to issue an order to block the information posted on X. X argues that such an order can only be issued under Section 69A of the IT Act.

Also read: AI Grok Row: Now ‘abuse’ is also giving Grok AI! Government of India took action; What will Alan Musk do?