“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thereof the protection of safe harbor available to the intermediary available under Section 79(1) is liable to be withdrawn,” stated the Union government in a recent legal filing.
This statement underscores the escalating tensions surrounding a series of tweets posted by journalist Rana Ayyub between 2013 and 2017, which have been described as derogatory and inflammatory towards Hindu deities and historical figure Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. The tweets have drawn the attention of the Indian authorities, leading to significant legal implications for X Corp, the parent company of the platform where the tweets were shared.
The controversy has intensified as the Union government announced that X Corp may lose its safe harbor protection in India due to its failure to remove these contentious tweets. This legal protection, outlined in Section 79 of the IT Act, is granted to intermediaries that adhere to due diligence and promptly address unlawful content upon notification.
In a further development, the Delhi Police issued judicial orders and statutory notices to X Corp, emphasizing the need for immediate action against the tweets. The government has argued that the inaction of X Corp constitutes a breach of the due diligence requirements, thereby jeopardizing its legal protections.
Additionally, the Delhi High Court was informed that police had requested action under Section 69A of the IT Act to block access to the tweets, marking a significant escalation in the government’s efforts to regulate online content deemed unlawful.
The tweets in question have sparked a heated debate about free speech and the responsibilities of social media platforms in moderating content. The Union government has asserted that the police notices and trial court order provide ‘actual knowledge’ under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which obligates X Corp to act swiftly.
As the situation unfolds, the implications for both Rana Ayyub and X Corp remain significant. The government’s actions reflect a growing scrutiny of online speech in India, particularly when it intersects with sensitive cultural and religious sentiments.
Details remain unconfirmed regarding the next steps that X Corp will take in response to these legal challenges, but the stakes are high as the company navigates the complexities of compliance with Indian law while balancing the principles of free expression.
