“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 continued 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thereof the protection of safe harbor available to the intermediary available under Section 79(1) is liable to be withdrawn,” stated the Union government in a recent legal filing concerning the controversial tweets of journalist Rana Ayyub.
The tweets in question, which date back to between 2013 and 2017, have been described as derogatory and inflammatory, particularly towards Hindu deities and historical figure Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. The government has asserted that the failure of X Corp, the parent company of the platform where Ayyub’s tweets were posted, to remove this content could lead to the loss of its safe harbour protections under Indian law.
According to Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, intermediaries like X Corp are granted safe harbour protection provided they adhere to due diligence and act promptly to remove unlawful content upon notification. However, the Union government has indicated that X’s inaction constitutes a breach of these requirements.
In a related development, the Delhi Police have issued judicial orders and statutory notices to X Corp regarding the tweets, emphasizing that the police notices and trial court order constitute “actual knowledge” under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. This knowledge triggers a statutory obligation for X to act swiftly to remove the unlawful content.
The government’s affidavit highlights that the tweets are not only offensive but also pose a risk of communal unrest, thus justifying the urgency of the situation. The Delhi High Court has been informed that the police have requested action under Section 69A of the IT Act to block access to the tweets.
The controversy surrounding Ayyub’s tweets has reignited debates about freedom of speech and the responsibilities of social media platforms in India. As the situation develops, the implications for X Corp and the broader landscape of digital expression in India remain to be seen.
As the Union government continues to push for compliance, the next steps will likely involve further legal scrutiny and potential repercussions for X Corp if it fails to act on the government’s directives. The outcome of this case could set significant precedents for how social media companies operate in India and their obligations under local laws.
