In a significant ruling delivered on September 24, 2025, the Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition filed by X Corp (formerly Twitter) challenging multiple government takedown and blocking directives. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who authored the judgment, made it clear that foreign corporations cannot claim fundamental rights meant exclusively for Indian citizens.
Background
X Corp had moved the High Court questioning the legality of several blocking orders issued under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules, 2021. The company argued that only Section 69A of the IT Act empowered the government to block content and that Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 Rules was unconstitutional. It also sought to quash notifications from various ministries, claiming they exceeded their legal authority.
On the other side, the Union of India defended its right to regulate digital platforms, citing repeated non-compliance by X Corp with takedown directives and highlighting instances of harmful content that remained online despite orders for removal.
Court's Observations
The Court took a firm stance on the limited rights of foreign corporations under the Indian Constitution. Justice Nagaprasanna noted:
"A foreign company, standing under the umbrella of Article 14, cannot raise a challenge which in effect would lead to interpretation of Article 19. If it wants to operate in the nation, it has to abide by the laws, as simple as that."
The bench also referred to global precedents, observing that X Corp had faced similar actions in Brazil, Australia, and under the European Union’s Digital Services Act. The judge remarked that the company’s reluctance to comply with Indian takedown orders reflected a pattern:
"Petitioner has demonstrably adopted a tactical approach to delay compliance… no plausible explanation is offered for the delay."
The Court underlined the dangers of leaving objectionable content unchecked, citing X's own transparency report which revealed pending cases of child sexual exploitation with "abysmally low" response.
Decision
Concluding the matter, Justice Nagaprasanna rejected the petition in its entirety. The order stated:
"For the aforesaid reasons, the petition lacking in merit stands rejected. In the light of the rejection of the subject petition, the application of the interveners also stands rejected."
The Court closed on a cautionary note that while liberty of speech remains vital, it cannot come at the cost of public order and dignity:
"Liberty is yoked to responsibility, and the privilege of access carries with it the solemn duty of accountability."
Case Title:- X Corp. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number:- W.P. No.7405 of 2025 (GM-RES)