'Laws of India will have to obey Internet media', the Karnataka High Court has received a big shock to 'X' - the Karnataka High Court rejects X Corps Pley over the removal of content removal

Updated: WO, 24 Sep 2025 23:30 (IST) The Karnataka High Court rejected the social media platform X petition that disputed the government’s order to remove the material under the IT Act. The court said that the social media platforms cannot understand the Indian market as a place to play and that they should follow Indian laws. Jagran Bureau, New -Delhi. The social media platform “X” (East Twitter) had a major setback from the Karnataka High Court. The Karnataka High Court rejected the petition of the social media platform “X Carp” which disputed the right to order government officials to order to order material under the Information Technology Act (IT Act). Remove advertisement, just read the news, it became clear from this order of the Supreme Court that internet media and social media cannot be arbitrary, it will have to be considered laws of India. The court said in the ruling that no social media platform could consider the Indian market as a playground. The Supreme Court rejected X’s petition and said that social media should be regulated, especially in the case of crimes against women. This order of the Karnataka High Court is considered an important setback for Allen Musk’s company “X” because India is a big market for it. The Karnataka High Court rejected X’s petition “X” of the Indian Internet regulation in his petition. “X” disputed the validity of the “collaboration” portal of the central government. “Cooperation Portal” is an online platform used to issue orders to remove material to the Interiordiary (mid -service provider). ‘X’ lost his case in India in which he disputed the Indian rules to regulate the Internet media. Justice M. Night Prasanna, who rejected the plea of ​​’X’, said in his order on Wednesday that ‘X Carp’, ‘X Carp’, in his birthplace, ie the United States, where ‘X’ was born, under the Tekdown Act of Jurisdiction, chooses to follow the orders that make criminals and the same platform information in this country. This is unacceptable. The law must be accepted in any case. The court said in Article 19 of the Constitution, which gives fundamental rights to freedom of expression, Article 19 is clear in its promise, but it is only a Bill of Rights provided to citizens. A petitioner who is not a citizen of this country cannot claim protection under it. The court said that every platform that works under the jurisdiction of our country must be accepted that the responsibility is related to freedom and that the privilege of access brings a serious liability duty. The court said that social media that is a modern theater of ideas cannot be left in a state of chaotic freedom. The court said that the regulation of material is needed to protect the honor of women and prevent crimes against them. In the petition, the ‘corporate company abroad’, X, demanded the court to state that section 79 (3) (b) of the IT Act did not give the right to block the material. The court rejected all the arguments of X and said that the X Carp is a company enterprise in the United States, so it does not have the legal basis for submitting a written petition in India, as it cannot claim fundamental rights under section 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.