Centre Tells Delhi High Court: X May Lose Safe Harbour Over Inaction on Rana Ayyub’s Posts

The Delhi High Court on Friday was informed by the Central government and the Delhi Police that social media platform X could lose its safe harbour protection in India for allegedly failing to act against posts by journalist Rana Ayyub deemed offensive.

The submissions were made before a bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav through a short note filed by the authorities, asserting that the platform had failed to comply with its statutory obligations despite having “actual knowledge” of the allegedly unlawful content.

According to the government, the Delhi Police had issued notices to X in September 2025 and December 2025, specifically requesting the removal of certain tweets posted by Ayyub. These posts allegedly contained objectionable remarks concerning Hindu deities and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar.

The authorities further pointed out that in January 2025, a trial court had directed the registration of a first information report (FIR) against Ayyub in connection with the same posts. This, they argued, strengthened the obligation on the intermediary to act promptly.

The Centre contended that both the police notices and the trial court’s order squarely fall within the ambit of “actual knowledge” as contemplated under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. Once such knowledge is established, intermediaries are required to act expeditiously to remove or disable access to unlawful content.

It was submitted that X’s failure to take action despite these triggers amounts to a violation of due diligence requirements prescribed under the Rules. As a consequence, the government argued, the platform risks losing the immunity granted to intermediaries under Section 79(1) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

“Such inaction amounts to non-compliance with the due diligence requirements… and facilitates continued commission of unlawful acts,” the note stated, adding that safe harbour protection would therefore be liable to be withdrawn.

On the other hand, X contended that the petition filed against it is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. The platform argued that it does not fall within the definition of “State” under Article 12 and does not perform any public function that would make it amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

X further submitted that the Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction, ought not to adjudicate upon whether the impugned social media posts are unlawful.

According to the platform, such determination requires evidentiary examination and should be undertaken through a properly instituted civil suit rather than in writ proceedings.

It argued that the petitioner should have approached a civil court seeking appropriate reliefs, including a declaration on the legality of the posts.

In addition, X urged the Court to direct the authorities, including the Delhi Police and the Union Government, to adhere strictly to the statutory procedure prescribed under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. It submitted that any direction for removal or blocking of content must be issued through a formal blocking order under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, rather than through informal or indirect mechanisms.

Supporting the objection on maintainability, Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for Ayyub, also questioned whether the writ petition could be sustained against a private intermediary like X. She emphasised that the issue of maintainability goes to the root of the matter and must be addressed before any substantive adjudication.

The submissions come in response to earlier arguments by the Centre and the Delhi Police, which had asserted that X may lose its safe harbour protection under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 for allegedly failing to act despite having “actual knowledge” of the posts in question.

After hearing the parties, the Court directed the Delhi Police to give effect to the interim order in accordance with law, without elaborating further on the nature of such compliance. At the same time, the Court granted liberty to Ayyub to file a detailed reply, including submissions specifically addressing the issue of maintainability of the writ petition.

The matter has now been listed for further hearing on May 19, where the Court is expected to consider the preliminary objections alongside the broader questions concerning intermediary liability, procedural compliance, and the scope of writ jurisdiction in cases involving digital platforms.

In the last hearing, in a sharply worded order that signalled zero tolerance for allegedly inflammatory online speech, the Delhi High Court had pulled up journalist Rana Ayyub over a series of controversial social media posts, describing them as “highly derogatory, inflammatory and communal,” and directing authorities to act within 24 hours to address the content.

Safe harbour protection shields intermediaries like social media platforms from liability for third-party content, provided they adhere to statutory conditions, including prompt action upon receiving notice of unlawful material.

The case raises important constitutional and regulatory questions, particularly on whether private social media intermediaries can be subjected to writ jurisdiction and how courts should balance enforcement of legal obligations with procedural safeguards under existing information technology laws.

Case Title: Amita Sachdeva v. Union of India & Ors.