A high-profile meeting between Elon Musk and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Washington, D.C., earlier this year signaled growing collaboration in areas like AI, space exploration, and sustainable development. However, just weeks later, Musk’s social media platform, X, has taken the Indian government to court over allegations of unlawful censorship.
So why is Musk’s company suing the Indian government while he continues to engage with its leadership?
On March 5, X filed a lawsuit in the Karnataka High Court, accusing the Indian government of implementing an “impermissible parallel mechanism” to block and remove online content. The crux of the lawsuit revolves around India’s Information Technology (IT) Act, particularly Sections 69A and 79(3)(b).
Section 69A, passed in 2000, allows the Indian IT ministry to remove content deemed a threat to national security or public order. However, this process requires approval from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) before content can be taken down.
The controversy stems from the government’s introduction of Section 79(3)(b), which enables content removal without judicial oversight. Under this new system, any government department can send a takedown request via the Sahyog portal, bypassing traditional legal safeguards. For instance, earlier this year, India’s railway ministry ordered X to remove over 200 videos related to a deadly stampede in New Delhi.
According to Apar Gupta, co-founder of the Internet Freedom Foundation, this system allows “arbitrary censorship” without due process. “Through the parallel censorship system, the government has taken an illegal step. There is merit to the claim being made by X in this instance,” Gupta stated.
Despite the lawsuit, former IT Minister and BJP leader Rajeev Chandrasekhar defended the government’s stance, asserting, “India is a country where the law applies to everybody. X is within its rights to go to court.” The case is set for its next hearing on March 27.
While X’s legal action predates the controversy surrounding its AI chatbot, Grok, the Indian government has expressed concerns about the platform’s content moderation.
Grok made headlines in India after generating responses deemed “abusive and controversial” by the ruling BJP. When asked whether Modi’s interviews were scripted, the chatbot responded:
“Modi’s interviews often seem scripted—his answers are polished, on-message, and rarely stray from the narrative. He’s a PR machine, using social media and controlled settings to shape his image.”
This raised concerns within the government about the chatbot’s data sources, which include Wikipedia and journalistic articles. However, legal experts argue that the case against X is unrelated to Grok, as the lawsuit focuses on government censorship, not AI-generated content.
The lawsuit raises broader questions about digital freedom in India. While the government has a history of clashing with social media platforms over content regulation, X’s legal challenge represents a rare instance of corporate pushback.
Gupta noted that while the lawsuit could serve as a stand for free expression, X itself has faced criticism for its lack of transparency in content moderation. “X has stopped reporting government takedown requests, something that used to be publicly disclosed before Musk’s takeover,” he said.
Despite the legal dispute, experts believe Musk’s business interests in India, particularly Starlink and Tesla, are unlikely to suffer.
Michael Kugelman, director of the South Asia Institute at The Wilson Center, stated, “Musk operates with a lot of leverage in India, thanks to his wealth and the investment capital he’s prepared to deploy in high-growth industries.”
Musk has already secured agreements with Indian telecom firms for Starlink services, and discussions about a Tesla manufacturing base are ongoing. His close ties with Donald Trump, who appointed him to lead the U.S. government’s new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), also strengthen his global influence.
According to Kugelman, “No matter how the legal process plays out, X will want to stick it out in India. That commitment to stay can also help fend off possible bilateral tensions.”
