CURRENT AFFAIRS | 18 APRIL 2026
CLAT GK + CONSTITUTIONAL LAW & RELEVANT AREA
The Ministry of Home Affairs has told the Gujarat High Court, in an affidavit filed on a PIL by advocate Vikas Vijay Nair, that X Corp (formerly Twitter) responded to only 13 of 94 takedown notices issued under Section 69A of the IT Act across 2024-26, even though the 94 notices covered 1,160 URLs flagged for unlawful content. The affidavit is the most granular regulatory disclosure yet on X’s compliance record in India.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D. N. Ray returned the matter to May 8, 2026, directing X, Meta and Google to ensure onboarding to the MHA’s SAHYOG portal. MHA told the court that Meta and Google are already integrated; X alone has refused. The Bench also flagged X’s selective removal of US-Israel-Iran war deepfakes outside India, raising the wider question of platform discretion over Section 69A.
Constitutional & Legal Framework
- Art 19(1)(a) & 19(2): Free speech and the 8 enumerated grounds of reasonable restriction (sovereignty, integrity, public order, decency, defamation, contempt, morality, incitement).
- IT Act 2000 Sec 69A: Central Government power to direct blocking of online information on listed grounds, subject to procedural safeguards under the 2009 Blocking Rules.
- IT Act Sec 79(3)(b): Intermediaries lose ‘safe harbour’ immunity where they fail to expeditiously act on actual knowledge or a lawful government/court notice.
- IT Rules 2021 (Intermediary Guidelines) Rule 3(1)(d): Removal within 36 hours on receipt of government/court direction.
- BNS 2023: Sec 152 (acts endangering sovereignty and integrity), Sec 353 (false information prejudicial to public tranquillity).
- Key precedents: Shreya Singhal v UoI (2015) struck down Sec 66A, upheld Sec 69A with reading-down; Kunal Kamra v UoI (Bombay HC, 2025) struck down Fact Check Unit Rules; Anuradha Bhasin v UoI (2020) applied proportionality to internet shutdowns.
CLAT Angle — Why This Matters
This story is a ready-made CLAT legal-reasoning passage. Examiners love it because it stitches together three doctrines: free speech under Art 19(1)(a), intermediary liability under Sec 79, and government blocking power under Sec 69A. Expect principle-application questions like: “X refuses to comply with a Sec 69A order it believes is unconstitutional. Can it claim Art 19(1)(a) on behalf of its users?” The Shreya Singhal safeguards (narrow grounds, reasoned order, review committee) are the answer key. Watch for questions on the Sec 69A vs Sec 79(3)(b) distinction — they are not interchangeable, and that is precisely why the Karnataka HC’s Sahyog ruling matters.
Key Facts at a Glance
| Metric | Figure |
|---|---|
| Takedown notices to X Corp (2024-26) | 94 |
| URLs flagged | 1,160 |
| Formal responses from X | 13 |
| Platforms on SAHYOG portal | Meta, Google (X not onboarded) |
| Bench | CJ Sunita Agarwal, J. D. N. Ray |
| Next hearing | 8 May 2026 |
| Petitioner | Adv Vikas Vijay Nair (PIL) |
Mnemonic
“69 BLOCK, 79 LIABLE, 36 HOURS, SAHYOG STABLE” — Sec 69A blocks, Sec 79(3)(b) triggers intermediary liability, Rule 3(1)(d) sets the 36-hour clock, SAHYOG is the single portal that holds it all together.
Practice Quiz — 10 MCQs
Test yourself on the constitutional and statutory framework behind the X Corp-MHA dispute.
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
