The Union government and Delhi Police informed the Delhi High Court that X Corp’s safe harbour protection is liable to be withdrawn because it failed to remove tweets by journalist Rana Ayyub allegedly insulting Hindu deities, despite statutory notices from the Delhi Police and judicial orders, and has been facilitating the dissemination of unlawful content.
The safe harbour provision under section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, protects online intermediaries, such as social media platforms, from legal liability for user-generated content posted on their platforms. This protection applies only if intermediaries follow due diligence and promptly remove unlawful content upon receiving court or government orders or gaining actual knowledge of such illegal material.
Under Section 79(3)(b), intermediaries lose this immunity if they fail to remove or disable access to unlawful content after receiving “actual knowledge” or a notification from a court or government authority. The provision requires intermediaries to take down or block access to such content within 36 hours of receiving a court order or government direction declaring the content obscene, prohibited, or otherwise unlawful.
The joint note filed by the Union government and Delhi Police on Friday further stated that X Corp took no action despite having judicial notice of a trial court’s January 2025 order directing registration of an FIR against Ayyub under Sections 153A (promoting enmity between groups on religious grounds), 295A (deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings), and 505 (statements conducing to public mischief) of the IPC, saying that the same prima facie disclosed a cognisable offence.
It added that X also failed to remove the tweets even after receiving notices from Delhi police in September and December 2025 requesting the takedown of the content.
“It is submitted that Rule 07 of the IT Rules, 2021 expressly provide that failure to observe due diligence would disentitle the intermediary from claiming exemption from liability under Section 79(1) of the IT Act, 2000. It is further submitted that in the present case, despite receipt of ‘actual knowledge‘ by way of a judicial order, as well as statutory notices issued by the law enforcement agency i.e. Delhi Police, the intermediary i.e. ‘X’ (formerly known as Twitter) has failed to remove the unlawful content from its platform,” the note stated.
It added, “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 continues commission of unlawful acts by its user i.e. Rana Ayyub (Respondent No. 04) and a consequence thereof the protection of safe harbor available to the intermediary available under Section 79(1) is liable to be withdrawn.”
The note was filed in a petition preferred by advocate Amita Sachdeva seeking deletion of the six tweets posted by Ayyub from 2013 to 2017. On Wednesday, the court directed the Centre, Delhi police’s lawyer Rajat Nair and X (formerly Twitter) to take appropriate action regarding Ayyub’s tweets describing them as ‘highly derogatory’, ‘communal’ and ‘inflammatory’ in nature.
In this regard, the note stated that the Delhi police on Thursday had written to the Centre for blocking Ayyub’s tweets and the Centre has already initiated the proceedings under law.
X Corp, in its affidavit opposing Sachdeva’s petition, stated that on February 28 it had furnished the requisite information to the Delhi Police in response to notices seeking details of Ayyub’s X account. It further submitted that the court should direct the Centre and the Delhi Police to follow the procedure prescribed under the Information Technology Act for blocking online content since Ayyub’s posts are squarely covered under the heads of section 69A of the IT Act. The said provision empowers government to direct blocking of public access to online content in certain circumstances including when the same affects public order, defence of India, security of the state and constitutes incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence. The affidavit further stated that the petition was not maintainable against X since it is not a state and does not perform public functions to be amenable to court’s writ jurisdiction.
The matter was adjoruend for May 19 after the court granted Ayyub time to respond to the Centre and X’s replies.
