State: Applicable Across India

Year: 2025

Date: March 20, 2025

Source:

Policies/Regulations

Elon Musk’s company is arguing against the government’s expanded powers to allow easier removal of online content

India’s IT ministry has unlawfully expanded censorship powers to allow the easier removal of online content and empowered “countless” government officials to execute such orders, Elon Musk’s X has alleged in a new lawsuit against New Delhi.

The lawsuit and the allegations mark an escalation in an ongoing legal dispute between X and the government of India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, over how New Delhi orders content to be taken down. It also comes as Musk is getting closer to launching his other key ventures, Starlink and Tesla, in India.

In the new court filing, dated 5 March, X argues that India’s IT ministry is asking other departments to use a government website launched by the home affairs ministry last year to issue content-blocking orders and mandate social media companies to join the website too. This mechanism, X says, does not contain the stringent Indian legal safeguards on content removal that required such orders to be issued in cases such as harm to sovereignty or public order, and came with strict oversight of top officials.

India’s IT ministry redirected a request for comment to the home affairs ministry, which did not respond.

Updated On: September 24, 2025

"Social media cannot be left in a state of anarchic freedom": Karnataka HC rejects X Corp plea

In the X Corp vs Union of India case, Justice N Nagaprasanna opened with a sweeping observation: “From Orient to Occident, the march of civilization has borne witness to the inescapable truth that information and communication, in its spread or its speed, has never been left unchecked and unregulated. It has always been the subject matter of regulation. As technology developed—from messengers to the postal age to the age of WhatsApp, Instagram, and Snapchat—all have been regulated by subsisting regimes, both globally and locally.”

He then turned to the Constitution, noting that Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees the right to free speech and expression, is always hedged by reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). Free speech, he emphasised, cannot be viewed in absolute ter