7 min readVadodaraSep 11, 2026 03:00 PM IST
Elon Musk-owned X Corp has accused the Ministry of Home Affairs of concealing key developments from the Gujarat High Court, saying it was seeking, through the “backdoor”, an order directing the platform to join the government’s content-takedown portal, Sahyog, whose constitutional validity is already under challenge by X in another Indian court.
X’s contentions were part of an affidavit filed in August, weeks before the Supreme Court, on September 8, issued notice on the Centre’s transfer plea and stayed further proceedings in the Gujarat case.
The Supreme Court’s intervention came in a petition seeking transfer of the public interest litigation filed by advocate Vikas Vijay Nair in the Gujarat High Court, through advocate Amit Panchal. A three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana issued notice, returnable on October 5. Pending hearing, the court ordered that further proceedings in the Gujarat High Court “shall remain stayed”.
In its affidavit, signed by authorised signatory Zaur Gajev, X Corp has challenged the Centre’s contention—made in an affidavit filed in the Gujarat High Court in April—that X has failed to cooperate with lawful content-blocking directions. The company said it “complies with 100% of receiving Section 69A blocking orders within just a few hours, including all emergency blocking orders”. Section 69A of the Information Technology Act empowers the Indian government to block public access to online information.
X Corp added that the government has an established channel for sending such orders through email and that Gujarat Police and the Central Government regularly use X’s legal-request system, LEGOS.
No lack of cooperation: X
Listing figures to back its claim, X said that in just two months—April and May 2025—it received more than 62 emergency blocking orders under Section 69A covering 1,800 URLs, including 1,500 accounts, and complied with all of them. It further claimed that in 2025, the government issued at least 11 emergency blocking lists covering at least 15,000 URLs and 66 non-emergency lists covering at least 4,000 URLs, besides other Section 69A lists. “X complied with all” of these, the affidavit said.
For January to April 2026, X said, the government issued at least 105 emergency blocking lists covering 4,000 URLs and 41 non-emergency lists covering another 1,129 URLs. According to the company, it complied with all 146 lists, covering at least 5,129 URLs.
Story continues below this ad
The company also challenged the Centre’s reliance on notices issued under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, stating that such notices are “requests” and not Section 69A blocking orders, which carry the statutory safeguards and procedure prescribed for restricting access to online content.
In response to the Ministry of Home Affairs’ claim that X received 94 intimations concerning 1,160 URLs between 2024 and 2026 but replied only to 13 formal responses, X denied that it “responded to only 13 intimations and that there is a low rate of formal response”, and also denied “any lack of cooperation with lawfully issued directions” or having flouted lawful Section 69A orders.
X contended that the Centre could have invoked Section 69A if it believed the material warranted blocking but instead sent notices under Section 79. It stated that the overwhelming majority of the URLs cited by the government related to current affairs, newsworthy subjects and political parties and “did not appear to constitute unlawful content”.
The affidavit makes a similar argument over allegations concerning AI-generated and manipulated content. The affidavit cites government data showing 2,700 posts were blocked between February 12 and March 15, 2026, including material categorised as fake news, disinformation, malicious propaganda, obscene content and communal or religious incitement. The government had stated that around 90 per cent of the content identified and acted upon during this period was AI-generated or synthetically manipulated.
Story continues below this ad
Dispute over Sahyog
The company said it had repeatedly told the Centre that onboarding to the Sahyog portal was not mandatory, arguing that it was neither authorised by the IT Act nor provided for under the Information Technology Rules, 2021. X said it already operates LEGOS for law-enforcement requests and that government agencies have regularly used that system.
X pointed to proceedings before the Delhi and Karnataka High Courts, saying the Centre had itself maintained in earlier proceedings that onboarding was optional and that no court had directed X to join the portal. The affidavit states, “Having not been able to get an order from the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Delhi High Court to force X to join the secretive impugned portal, MHA now seeks to get a backdoor order from this Hon’ble Court to force it to join the impugned portal…”.
X also accused the Centre of withholding developments in the Karnataka litigation. It said that on March 10, 2026, a Karnataka High Court division bench headed by the Chief Justice had issued notice in X’s appeal concerning Sahyog and was seized of challenges to the portal’s constitutional validity. According to X, the Centre was aware of those developments but “omitted them from their affidavits filed with this Hon’ble Court”.
The company affidavit further contended that the Centre failed to disclose the intervention of DIGIPUB News India Foundation, which, X said, represents more than 90 news organisations and journalists and had intervened in the Karnataka proceedings to challenge the portal’s legality and its alleged impact on lawful speech and the press. X stated that the Sahyog portal has been challenged before multiple high courts and the Supreme Court.
Story continues below this ad
Adani posts among content flagged
The affidavit also gave a glimpse of the kind of content over which X said Section 79 notices were being issued. One example involved a post by the handle @TribalArmy concerning Adani Group’s alleged Stage-I approval for mining in the Hasdeo forest in Chhattisgarh. X said the government sought nationwide removal of the post, describing it as an “unlawful act” and alleging that it contained a “synthetically generated and digitally manipulated (AI deepfake) image” of the Prime Minister. The government also said the content could spread misinformation, provoke public sentiment and disturb public order.
X said similar notices were issued in June over a post asking how long it would take for Adani to buy Vedanta. According to X, the government again labelled the material “unlawful and prohibited”, while the company argued that it concerned a newsworthy issue involving prominent corporate personalities. X said one such notice even threatened criminal prosecution.
“Without prejudice,” X said, “the notices lack application of mind” and argued that this is precisely the type of situation for which the safeguards under Section 69A and the Blocking Rules exist.
Beyond the takedown dispute, X challenged the maintainability of the PIL against it, arguing that the company is a private entity and does not perform a public function. It also opposed prayers seeking prior restraint or real-time removal of AI-generated and deepfake content, arguing that such directions would effectively require private intermediaries to decide whether content is unlawful.
