Key Points

The bench of Justice Nagaprasanna pronounced a verdict on X's plea seeking a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) IT Act does not confer power on the Centre to issue information blocking orders.

"Social media must be regulated," Justice Nagaprasanna said.

The court noted that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).

Stressing that "unregulated speech under the guise of liberty results in lawlessness," the bench said social media platforms cannot claim an "anarchic freedom" in the Indian digital space.

"The petitioner who seeks sanctuary must be a citizen of the nation. Sahyog portal stands as a beacon of cooperation between citizens and intermediaries. Hence, the challenge is without merit," the court remarked.

Rejecting X's contention of free speech, the High Court underlined that American jurisprudence cannot be transplanted into Indian constitutional thought, adding that judicial thinking on the regulation of speech has evolved in keeping with technological developments.

"No social media platform can treat the Indian marketplace as a mere playground. Every sovereign nation regulates social media, and so must India," the court observed.

The bench further noted that X complies with similar regulatory regimes in the United States but has opposed India's framework.

"We are a society governed by laws. Order is the architecture of democracy. The petitioner's platform is subject to a regulatory regime in the USA; the same petitioner refuses to follow similar laws in India. The petition stands rejected. Application for intervenor stands rejected," the order stated.

- ANI