The Karnataka High Court has been informed by the Central government that X Corp. (formerly Twitter) does not possess the entitlement to access review committee orders. These orders affirmed the government's action to block content on the microblogging platform during the period of 2021-22.

The Central Government made this submission in a statement of objections filed in response to an interlocutory application (IA) by X Corp. The IA from X Corp requested access to the review committee orders.

A division bench of the High Court is scheduled to decide on a case brought forth by X Corp, challenging the Central government's directives to block specific tweets during 2021-22, a decision upheld by a review committee. Earlier this year, X Corp contended that without access to the review committee's orders, it would be unable to effectively contest the decision to block content on its platform. Consequently, X Corp has petitioned for access to the Review Committee's orders.

The social media giant additionally raised a concern regarding the Review Committee's compliance with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules (IT Rules), asserting that the Committee had purportedly never convened as mandated.

In its statement of objections, the Central government has refuted the claim by asserting that the committee did convene to review the blocking orders against X (Twitter, as it was known then). However, the government has raised doubts about the admissibility of the interlocutory application (IA) filed by X Corp. The Central government argued that since X Corp is only an intermediary and not the originator or creator of the blocked content, it does not possess any entitlement to access Review Committee orders whatsoever.

The Central government emphasized that the review of decisions to block internet content under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act acts as a safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power. However, according to the government, only the creators of the accounts or tweets are entitled to invoke this safeguard. Additionally, the government asserted that the review process under Rule 14 of the IT Rules constitutes an internal and independent safeguard mechanism. The government contended that there is no obligation to hear any party before issuing the review orders.

Previously, in June 2023, a single judge of the High Court dismissed X Corp's challenge (writ petition) against the Central government's blocking orders, imposing a penalty of ₹50 lakhs as costs. It was in response to this ruling that X Corp filed an appeal (a writ appeal) before the High Court's division bench. In its statement of objections, the Central government highlighted that the single judge had examined the blocking orders and was content with their accuracy.

The government further added that the ruling of the single judge still holds authority over X Corp because the decision to uphold the blocking orders has not been suspended or overturned.

The government also emphasized that in the initial writ petition, X Corp. solely contested the blocking of 39 URLs. However, in its interlocutory application (IA), X Corp is now disputing 1,096 blocking directives. The government has contested this expansion, labeling it as an effort to broaden the scope of X Corp's challenge.

X Corp's writ appeal is scheduled to be heard next by the High Court's division bench in March.