On Wednesday, September 24, Elon Musk’s X Corp faced a significant legal setback as the Karnataka High Court (HC) dismissed its petition challenging the Centre’s authority to issue information blocking orders under the Information Technology Act. Justice M Nagaprasanna, presiding over the Karnataka HC bench, firmly stated that X Corp's petition lacked merit and underscored the imperative for social media regulation, particularly concerning offenses against women.

The court explicitly maintained, “Petition lacks merit, stands rejected. Social media needs to be regulated, it's regulation is a must, more so in cases of offenses against women.” It further elaborated on this stance, asserting, “Social media needs to be regulated, and it's regulation is a must, more so in cases of offenses against women, in particular, failing which the right to dignity, as ordained in the Constitution of a citizen gets railroaded.”

During the dictation of the order, Justice Nagaprasanna emphasized that social media platforms cannot be allowed to exist in a state of “anarchic freedom.” He elaborated on the global precedent for such regulation, stating, "Regulation of information in this domain is neither novel nor unique. United States of America regulates it. Every sovereign nation regulates it. And India's resolve likewise, cannot by any stretch of Constitutional imagination, be branded as unlawful." The judge powerfully articulated the necessity of regulated speech, contrasting it with unregulated speech which, "under the guise of liberty becomes a license to lawlessness. Regulated speech by contrast, preserves both liberty and order, the twin pillars upon which the democracy must stand."

The court also highlighted X Corp's double standard, observing that the platform complies with takedown orders in the United States of America, its "birthplace and footland," where violating such orders is criminalized. However, the same petitioner "refuses to follow the same on the shores of this nation of a similar takedown orders which are founded upon illegality. This is sans countenance." For these cumulative reasons, the petition was rejected for lacking merit.