An Indian court has dismissed an attempt by Elon Musk’s X to challenge the Indian government’s content takedown orders, ruling that the social media platform, as a foreign company, does not have a constitutional right to free speech under Indian law.
The Karnataka High Court ruled Wednesday in favor of the Indian government’s use of a centralized online portal to issue content takedown orders, determining that foreign platforms cannot invoke free speech protections under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. The court said this constitutional of free expression applies only to Indian citizens. The decision marks a significant moment in India’s increasingly assertive approach to regulating global tech companies.
X filed the case in March, challenging a series of Indian government orders directing the platform to block certain accounts and posts, including content critical of official policies. At the heart of the dispute was the use of “Sahyog” — a government portal launched in October that allows authorities to directly order social media companies to remove content. Sahyog means “assistance” in Hindi. X called it a “censorship portal” and argued the process lacked transparency and violated principles of free expression.
“Article 19 of the Constitution of India, noble in its spirit and luminous in its promise, remains, nevertheless, a Charter of Rights conferred upon citizens only. The petitioner who seeks sanctuary under its canopy must be a citizen of the nation, failing which the protective embrace of Article 19 cannot be invoked,” senior judge M Nagaprasanna said in his ruling, which was also livestreamed, as the court rejected X’s petition.
The ruling comes as Musk expands his footprint in India beyond X, having recently launched Tesla operations and secured final regulatory approval for his satellite internet service Starlink. The South Asian nation is a strategic bet for the billionaire, boasting the world’s second-largest internet user base after China and a government committed to achieving 30% electric vehicle adoption by 2030.
X did not respond to a request for comments. A legal representative for X in India was not immediately available to comment on the ruling.
Kazim Rizvi, Founding Director of The Dialogue, a New Delhi-based think tank, said the ruling may improve coordination between the government and platforms, but cautioned that “due diligence” should not become a blanket obligation to comply — especially when takedowns occur via a portal, rather than through the structured safeguards of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. (Section 69A is India’s main law governing how the government can order content blocking, and it includes procedural protections.)
“To avoid unintended legal effects, the portal should operate strictly as a coordination and collection layer — a secure intake and routing point for requests, and any binding action should originate from a competent authority under the IT Act/Rules,” he told TechCrunch.
Content takedown orders have increased in India over the past few years as more people come online. Several instances of content removal across platforms — including X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, and Instagram — occurred during the nationwide farmers’ protests in 2020–2021. These protests saw widespread social media activity that the government sought to control.
The federal government introduced the Sahyog portal last year to expedite the removal of unlawful content from social media, arguing that it would streamline enforcement. Companies, including Microsoft, Google, Meta, ShareChat, and LinkedIn, have already integrated the portal to remove content after receiving notices through an automated process triggered by the federal government or its agencies.
In February 2024, X stated that, although it disagreed with the orders, it withheld certain accounts in response to executive directives from the Indian government. Noncompliance, the company noted, could have exposed it to “potential penalties including significant fines and imprisonment.”
A legal expert, who works closely with tech companies and the Indian government on policy matters and requested anonymity due to the sensitive nature of their work, told TechCrunch that Wednesday’s ruling was significant. The decision shows that courts are increasingly viewing internet regulation and tech policy through a policy lens — not just a legal one, they said.
Musk, who has called himself a “free speech absolutist,” has not commented on the lawsuit and ruling, though he previously raised concerns about Indian content regulation laws.
“The rules in India for what can appear on social media are quite strict, and we can’t go beyond the laws of a country,” Musk said in a 2023 interview with the BBC.
X can still appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. However, some legal experts argue that it is unclear whether the company would receive favorable treatment, as the top court is likely to follow the same line of reasoning as the Karnataka High Court.
“The ruling didn’t address whether the government should even have the power to use a portal for ordering content takedowns,” said a tech policy expert, who requested not to be named due to their close ties with the Indian government and major tech firms.
The court will release the order’s copy on Thursday, the judge said.
