The Center and Delhi Police have told the Delhi High Court that Rana Ayyub‘s allegedly offensive tweets on Hindu deities and VD Savarkar, as per Bar and Bench.
The government said that despite multiple notices and a court order, the X did not take down the content, raising concerns around its compliance with intermediate obligations under Indian law.
According to the submission, Delhi Police issued notices to X in September and December 2025, seeking removal of the tweets. Besides, a trial court in January 2025 ordered the registration of an FIR against Ayyub over the same posts.
The Center argued that these notices, along with the court order, amount to “actual knowledge” under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. This, it said, requires intermediaries to act promptly and remove unlawful content.
Also read: MeitY takes cognizance of Grok misuse on X, action to follow soon: Secretary S Krishnan
It added that X’s failure to act despite such “actual knowledge” could put its safe harbor protection at risk.
Notably, the High Court had earlier observed on April 8, 2026, that the tweets posted between 2013 and 2017 were derogatory and communal in nature. Following the hearing, Delhi Police approached the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to block the content, and the request is currently under consideration.
In its response, X said that the petition should be directed against the original content creator, Ayyub, and not the platform. It also sought directions to the Delhi Police to follow the 2009 Blocking Rules and issue an order under Section 69A of the IT Act for content takedown.
In a more detailed defence, It added that the High Court should not adjudicate on the lawfulness of the posts in its writ jurisdiction, suggesting that the petitioner should instead pursue a civil suit to determine the legality of the content.
Also read: MeitY takes cognizance of Grok misuse on X, action to follow soon: Secretary S Krishnan
Meanwhile, Ayyub’s counsel told the court that the writ petition is not maintainable. The court has granted her two weeks to file a reply, including on the issue of maintainability. The next hearing is scheduled for May.
