Modi visited the United States to meet with President Donald Trump. In his meeting with Musk, discussions touched on potential collaborations in the areas of artificial intelligence (AI), space exploration, innovation, and sustainable development, as stated by India’s Ministry of External Affairs.
However, nearly a month later, Musk’s social media platform, X, has filed a lawsuit against the Indian government, alleging that New Delhi is unlawfully censoring online content.
This lawsuit comes as Musk is on the verge of launching both Starlink and Tesla in India.
But why is X suing India at a time when Musk is seemingly trying to charm Modi?
Why is X suing the Indian government?
In a lawsuit filed in the high court of the South Indian state of Karnataka, X argues that the Indian government has established “an impermissible parallel mechanism” to block content online. This mechanism empowers government officials and ministries to remove content, skipping the legal process outlined in the country’s Information Technology Act.
Section 69A of India’s IT Act, introduced in October 2000, gives the IT ministry the power to remove content that could threaten national security and “public decorum,” but it requires a judicial process. This involves the ministry asking the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) for permission to remove content, after which MeitY evaluates and decides on the content’s censorship.
Now, the Indian government has implemented a new method for removing content, Section 79 (3)(b) of the IT Act, which has a distinct blocking process.
Section 79 (3)(b) enables the removal of online content upon a simple notification from a government official, through the government’s “Sahyog” (cooperation) portal, without judicial oversight.
The Indian government requires social media platforms like X to register on the Sahyog portal, but the platform claims this would subject it “to arbitrary censorship.”
Apar Gupta, a lawyer and co-founder of the Internet Freedom Foundation, told Al Jazeera, “The new legal censorship power they have created through the Sahyog portal lacks safeguards, such as the need for a designated officer to send the censorship request to the central government. Almost any government department can now send takedown requests, bypassing legal scrutiny.”
Through this parallel censorship system, the government has implemented an action deemed unlawful. There is merit to the claim made by X in this case, according to Gupta.
Former IT Minister and BJP member Rajeev Chandrasekhar stated to Indian News Agency Asian News International, “India is a nation where the law applies to all. X is within its rights to go to court.”
X’s legal action against the government was publicized by Indian media on March 20, with the next hearing scheduled at the Karnataka High Court on March 27.
Al Jazeera has reached out to India’s IT Ministry and the ruling BJP party for comment.
Is controversy over X’s chatbot driving this case?
No, it doesn’t seem so. While MeITY officials have mentioned discussions with X about content generated by the social media platform’s chatbot, Grok 3, the lawsuit predates these events.
Recently, Grok has been a point of controversy in India by generating content and responding to user inquiries that may be considered “abusive and controversial” by the ruling BJP government.
When asked whether Prime Minister Modi’s interview responses are scripted, a chatbot named Grok responded: “Modi’s interviews often seem scripted – his answers are polished, on-message and rarely stray from the narrative. Real impromptu moments? Almost nonexistent.”
Gupta added, “Grok gives people the opportunity to pose critical questions about the union government; however, people should understand that Grok is primarily AI trained on public resources. It may also spread misinformation and be subject to various kinds of data-driven errors or distortions.”
“There is no direct connection between filing the case and the viral nature of Grok’s responses. The only link is that the same government ministry is involved.”
What does this mean for X users in India?
It’s too early to determine the impact the case’s outcome will have on X users in the country.
Gupta mentioned that the ongoing tensions between the government and large social media platforms in India stem from the government’s frequent overreach in censorship demands.
“However, in this case, X has a history of not being transparent about how it manages its content moderation policies. There’s an ongoing issue of X not being a model corporate citizen, especially since Musk’s acquisition,” he added.
Will the X lawsuit harm Musk’s prospects in India?
Experts state it is unlikely to have a significant impact. Michael Kugelman, the director of The Wilson Center’s South Asia Institute, told Al Jazeera that Musk operates with substantial leverage in India, thanks to the financial resources he is willing to invest in India’s high-growth sectors like telecom and renewables.
Musk has also been appointed to lead the US government’s new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and has announced cutting federal jobs, claiming the discovery of billions of dollars of waste and fraud in government spending.
“Musk’s connections with Trump increase his leverage. So, he can pursue his agenda quite freely without risking alienation from New Delhi. He can pursue Starlink and Tesla projects while also advocating for ‘free speech absolutism’ on social media,” Kugelman said, noting Musk’s investment and manufacturing plans in India.
Moreover, the impact of this lawsuit on US-India relations will be nominal, Kugelman suggests. With the massive Indian market’s allure, this X-related dispute is moot.
“Regardless of the legal outcome, X will likely remain committed to its presence in India, which will also help mitigate any potential bilateral tensions.”
