X Corp Submits To Delhi High Court: Global Blocking Orders Violate International Law And Sovereignty Of Other Nations

X Corp Submits To Delhi High Court: Global Blocking Orders Violate International Law And Sovereignty Of Other Nations

Social Media giant X Corp, formerly known as Twitter, has argued before the Delhi High Court that issuing global blocking orders on content by Indian courts would violate international law and infringe on the sovereignty of other nations. This stance was presented in the ongoing case of Rajat Sharma v. X Corp & Ors.

In an affidavit submitted to the court, X Corp acknowledged India’s right to enforce its laws within its own jurisdiction. However, the company warned that allowing an Indian court to decide what information is accessible in other countries could set a precedent that might enable foreign courts, such as those in Pakistan or China, to dictate what content Indian citizens can access on the Internet.

The company emphasized that such a scenario would not only encroach upon the sovereignty of other nations but also raise significant concerns under international law.

“Imagine if another country had the power to decide what Indian citizens could or could not see on the Internet. Plaintiff's argument essentially means that the courts of another country, like the courts of Pakistan or China, have the power to dictate what information Indian citizens can or cannot see online,” X Corp has argued.

It added,

“A direction to remove the posts in all countries - as opposed to restrict the posts in India—would be contrary to international law and the principles of comity of nations. It would extend beyond this Hon’ble Court’s jurisdictional reach and would encroach upon the sovereignty of all other countries, including the United States, where different legal standards and protections apply.”

The US-based company further contended that the court’s order would not be enforceable outside of India.

“In other words, no useful purpose will be served in passing the orders having international footprints which are otherwise incapable of being enforced globally. For example, under United States federal law, an order to remove these URLs on a global basis would not be enforced by a court in the United States.”

X Corp also challenged the Delhi High Court’s earlier decision in the Baba Ramdev case, where the court ordered the geo-blocking of content on social media platforms. The company argued that the court's interpretation of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act was incorrect, stating that this provision is intended as an exemption rather than a source of power for global content removal orders.

These arguments were presented by X Corp in response to a contempt application filed by journalist Rajat Sharma. Sharma contended that despite the High Court’s instructions, the social media platform only removed defamatory posts against him within India instead of blocking them globally.