The Centre and Delhi Police informed the Delhi High Court that X may jeopardize its safe harbour protection in India for failing to address journalist Rana Ayyub’s purportedly offensive tweets concerning Hindu deities and V D Savarkar, as reported by Bar and Bench.
The government stated that, despite numerous notices and a court directive, X did not remove the content, raising doubts about its adherence to intermediary responsibilities under Indian law.
According to the submission, Delhi Police issued notices to X in September and December 2025, requesting the removal of the tweets. Additionally, a trial court in January 2025 mandated the filing of an FIR against Ayyub regarding the same posts.
The Centre contended that these notices and the court ruling constitute “actual knowledge” as defined by the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. Accordingly, this necessitates that intermediaries act swiftly to eliminate unlawful content.
Also read: MeitY takes cognisance of Grok misuse on X, action to follow soon: Secretary S Krishnan
It emphasized that X’s inaction, despite such “actual knowledge,” could endanger its safe harbour protection.
Importantly, the High Court had previously remarked on April 8, 2026, that the tweets from 2013 to 2017 were derogatory and communal. Following the hearing, Delhi Police approached the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to block the content, which is currently under review.
In response, X argued that the petition ought to be directed at the original content creator, Ayyub, rather than the platform itself. It also called on the Delhi Police to adhere to the 2009 Blocking Rules and issue directives under Section 69A of the IT Act for content removal.
In a more comprehensive defense, X claimed it is not “the State” under Article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, not subject to writ jurisdiction under Article 226, according to LiveLaw. It suggested that the High Court should refrain from making judgments on the legality of the posts in its writ jurisdiction, proposing that the petitioner pursue a civil suit to assess the content’s legality.
Also read: MeitY takes cognisance of Grok misuse on X, action to follow soon: Secretary S Krishnan
Meanwhile, Ayyub’s lawyer told the court that the writ petition is not maintainable. The court has permitted her two weeks to submit a response, including on the matter of maintainability. The next hearing is set for May.
