The High Court of Karnataka issued a stay on Thursday regarding a previous order from a single judge that mandated the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) to pay Rs. 50 lakh for non-compliance with directives from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTY). The stay is conditional on the company depositing 50 percent of the imposed fine, which amounts to Rs. 25 lakh, within one week.
The court indicated that the deposit would serve to demonstrate X’s good faith in the matter. The single judge’s directive required the full amount to be submitted by August 14; this requirement has now been stayed until the next hearing.
“The order from the single judge bench is stayed until the next hearing date upon the deposit of Rs. 25 lakh,” the division bench stated.
The bench, which includes Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice MGS Kamal, was reviewing a petition from X aimed at contesting the earlier ruling by Justice Krishna S Dixit that rejected the company’s challenge against MeiTY’s take-down orders affecting various tweets, URLs, and hashtags. The single judge had also imposed a financial penalty on the platform in a ruling delivered on June 30.
In its interim order on Thursday, the division bench instructed X to make the Rs. 25 lakh deposit within one week. However, the court clarified that this deposition should not be interpreted as an acknowledgment that the legal standing favors X.
The single judge had previously determined that the company failed to comply with MeiTY’s orders for over a year before seeking relief from the High Court.
Between February 2, 2021, and February 28, 2022, MeiTY issued 10 government orders under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, which directed X to block a total of 1,474 accounts, 175 tweets, 256 URLs, and one hashtag. X challenged the orders concerning 39 of those URLs.
During the proceedings, X was represented by advocate Manu Kulkarni, while Central Government Counsel Kumar M N defended MeiTY’s position. The government counsel contended that the case was not maintainable.
Nevertheless, the division bench observed that the single judge had affirmed X’s right to challenge the blocking of its users’ tweets and accounts.
In a metaphor comparing X to a retail establishment, the High Court noted that it is reasonable to hold the shopkeeper accountable for selling substandard products. Following the temporary relief granted in the interim order, the division bench adjourned the appeal hearing for two weeks.
