“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thereof the protection of safe harbor available to the intermediary available under Section 79(1) is liable to be withdrawn.” This statement from the Union government underscores the gravity of the situation surrounding journalist Rana Ayyub’s tweets.
The controversy revolves around a series of tweets posted by Ayyub between 2013 and 2017, which have been described as derogatory and inflammatory, particularly towards Hindu deities and historical figure Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. The Union government has indicated that X Corp, the parent company of the platform where these tweets reside, may face significant repercussions for failing to act on this content.
According to the government, X Corp has received judicial orders and statutory notices from the Delhi Police regarding the tweets. These notifications are critical as they establish a legal obligation for X Corp to remove the tweets in question.
The Union government further elaborated, stating, “The police notices and trial court order constitute ‘actual knowledge’ under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, triggering a statutory obligation on X to act expeditiously and remove such unlawful content.” This highlights the legal framework that governs social media platforms in India.
Section 79 of the IT Act provides safe harbour protection to intermediaries, allowing them to avoid liability for user-generated content, provided they follow due diligence and remove unlawful content upon notification. However, the government’s affidavit claims that X’s inaction amounts to non-compliance with these requirements.
The tweets in question have sparked outrage and discussions about freedom of expression versus the need to curb hate speech in a diverse society like India. The government has initiated proceedings under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, to address the issue.
As this situation unfolds, it raises critical questions about the balance between protecting free speech and ensuring accountability for harmful content on social media platforms. The Delhi High Court has been informed that the police have requested action under Section 69A of the IT Act to block the tweets, indicating that legal actions are likely to continue.
With the stakes high for both Ayyub and X Corp, the outcome of this legal battle could have far-reaching implications for social media governance in India. As the government pushes for compliance, the future of Ayyub’s tweets—and potentially her voice—hangs in the balance.
