The Supreme Court declined to entertain a PIL seeking regulation of OTT platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime, Altt Balaji etc, over alleged “obscene” content, terming it a policy matter for the government.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih remarked, “We’re already criticised for interfering with Executive and Legislative functions,” and asked petitioner Vishnu Shankar Jain to serve notice to the Union.

Similar petitions filed in 2024 were also dismissed, with the Court affirming that the regulation of OTT platforms pertains to the policy domain and is beyond the scope of judicial intervention. (Uday Mahurkar and Ors. v UOI & Ors.)

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that merely liking a post on social media does not constitute publishing or transmitting obscene material under Section 67 of the IT Act, 2000.

Kazi was accused of provoking an unlawful assembly of 600–700 people through social media activity.

However, the Court found no objectionable content on Khan's social media accounts. He had merely "liked" a Facebook post of one Farhan Usman, which allegedly led to the unlawful assembly. 

The Court clarified that Section 67 pertains specifically to the publication or transmission of obscene content, not provocative or protest-related material. (Imran Khan v State of UP and Another)

The UP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that WhatsApp, as a service provider operating in India, falls within the purview of Indian consumer protection laws.

The ruling came in response to an appeal by former IPS officer Amitabh Thakur, whose complaint seeking compensation for a six-hour service disruption was earlier rejected by the Lucknow District Forum.

The district forum had reasoned that WhatsApp was a foreign entity and that Thakur, being a free user, was not a consumer.

The State Commission overruled this, directing the district forum to register the complaint and decide it within 90 days as per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The Bombay High Court granted bail to 23 year old Gaurav Arjun Patil, a former Naval Dockyard apprentice accused of sharing sensitive naval details with alleged Pakistani agents.

The Court observed that Patil was likely honey-trapped by women posing as shipping professionals on Facebook and WhatsApp. He shared details about docked ships, engine diagrams, and weather conditions in exchange for ₹2,000. 

The judge noted emotional grooming in the chats and emphasised a reformative approach, considering Patil’s cooperation and clean record.

Bail was granted with strict conditions, including a ₹25,000 bond and regular check-ins. The Court also urged social media vigilance, especially among youth.

The Ludhiana district court directed social media platforms like Meta, Youtube, and X to remove content, including video posts related to audio clips involving a senior Punjab police officer purportedly heard negotiating financial terms for sexual services with an unidentified woman.

The Court noted that the audio clip seemed to be AI-generated, showing signs of voice cloning and missing natural human speech patterns.

The Court warned that such content could damage the reputation of public institutions and trigger unrest, especially when shared by sources outside India’s legal control.

The Court has banned any re-uploads of similar material and instructed platforms and the public not to circulate such defamatory content.

The Supreme Court of India reserved its judgment on the Wikimedia Foundation's appeal challenging the Delhi High Court's directive to remove a Wikipedia page related to ANI's defamation lawsuit.

The apex court observed that courts cannot order the removal of content about legal proceedings merely because the High Court judges do not like it. Such takedown orders require a prima facie finding of contempt with recorded reasons.

The Court emphasized the importance of open justice and cautioned against actions that could have a chilling effect on media reporting.

The Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of an 18-second video that captured BJP leader Shazia Ilmi's residence, without her consent, citing a violation of her right to privacy.

The footage was recorded after Ilmi exited a televised debate and depicted her in a vulnerable state post exit. 

However, the Court imposed ₹25,000 as costs on Ilmi for willfully hiding two relevant tweets and said that while some of Sardesai’s comments were misleading, others were fact-based and fair.

The court ordered that the video must be taken down by all defendants until final suit disposal.

The Supreme Court refused to entertain a PIL seeking a statutory ban on social media use by children under 13 years, stating the matter lies within the government's policy domain. 

The Court dismissed the plea but allowed the petitioner to make a representation to the Union Government, which must consider it within eight weeks.

The petitioner raised concerns over the violation of Article 21, citing adverse psychological effects on minors and inadequate age-verification mechanisms.

Other requests included mandatory parental controls, algorithmic checks, and stronger provisions under the Draft Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2023.

X Corp (formerly Twitter) told the Karnataka High Court that the Centre’s claim that the Supreme Court’s Shreya Singhal v. UOI judgment is ‘per incuriam’ and not binding is "unheard of."

Senior advocate K.G. Raghavan argued that blocking orders must comply with Section 69A of the IT Act, which provides procedural safeguards, rather than  Section 79(3)(b).

X Corp also opposed the government’s 'Sahyog' portal, calling it a "censorship portal." The court maintained its previous interim order and listed the matter for final hearing on April 24, allowing X Corp to file a rejoinder.

Elon Musk’s social media platform X has sued the Indian government. 

The Supreme Court has denied YouTuber Ranveer Allahbadia's request to travel abroad until the probe into his obscenity case is complete.

The Court stated that his plea would be considered after two weeks, when the investigation concludes.

Earlier, on March 3, the Court allowed Allahbadia to resume his podcast under the condition that he maintains decency. The case stems from alleged obscene remarks made in an episode of India’s Got Latent.

The Court had previously condemned his statements as "perverted and dirty-minded," temporarily barring him from hosting any show.

The matter will be heard next on April 21.

The Union Government informed the Karnataka High Court that unlawful content does not enjoy the same constitutional protection as free speech.

This statement was made in response to X Corp’s (formerly Twitter) plea challenging the authority to issue content-blocking orders under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000.

The government argued that regulating unlawful content is essential for protecting democratic processes and public order. It also clarified that Section 79(3)(b) concerns safe harbour provisions for intermediaries, while Section 69A deals with blocking orders.

The court will hear the matter on April 3.

Elon Musk’s social media platform X (formerly Twitter) sued the Indian government in the Karnataka High Court, challenging its alleged misuse of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act to block content without following Section 69A’s legal framework.

X claims this violates the 2015 Shreya Singhal case, which protects free speech. The lawsuit also opposes the Sahyog portal, calling it a "censorship tool." 

As per the law, X must remove illegal content within 36 hours or it will lose legal protections. X says this leads to arbitrary censorship. 

The court has yet to schedule a hearing.

The Karnataka High Court has received confirmation from the Union Goverment that it has not blocked Proton Mail in India under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000.

M Moser Design Associated India Pvt Ltd filed a petition alleging cyber harassment of female employees via Proton Mail, a Swiss email service, and sought a ban on the platform. 

Previously, the court sought information regarding the measures taken to stop the illegal use, but the government stated no action had been taken yet. 

The Petitioner urges the court to direct the police to promptly initiate an investigation using international mechanisms.  

The next hearing is set for March 21, 2025.