The Central government and the Delhi Police told the Delhi High Court on Friday that social media platform X is liable to lose its safe harbour protection in India because it failed to act against Rana Ayyub’s allegedly offensive tweets about Hindu deities and RSS ideologue VD Savarkar. 

A short note filed before Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav said that the police had issued notices in September 2025 and December 2025, requesting X to take down Ayyub’s tweets. Further, the government said that in January 2025, a trial court ordered registration of a first information report (FIR) against Ayyub over these posts. 

It added that police notices and the trial court order constitute “actual knowledge” under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, triggering a statutory obligation on X to act expeditiously and remove such unlawful content. 

As X failed to act despite “actual knowledge”, its safe harbour protection is liable to be withdrawn, the Centre said.

“It is apposite to note that such inaction amounts to non-compliance with the due diligence requirements provided for in the applicable Rules and facilitates continues commission of unlawful acts by its user i.e. Rana Ayyub (Respondent No. 04) and a consequence thereof the protection of safe harbor available to the intermediary available under Section 79(1) is liable to be withdrawn."

In the previous hearing of the case on April 8, the High Court had said that Ayyub's tweets are "highly derogatory, inflammatory and communal" and asked the Delhi Police and X to take necessary action.

The Court further said that the matter requires urgent consideration and that X and the authorities will have to act in tandem.

"The action is necessary in view of the highly derogatory, inflammatory and communal tweets posted by Respondent Number 4 [Rana Ayyub] pursuant to which an FIR has been registered on the orders of a competent court. The matter requires urgent consideration. The official who represents Delhi Police is also directed to transmit necessary directions to Respondent Number 3 (X Corp). Let Delhi Police also be impleaded as a party,” the Court had ordered.

X has since filed a reply in the case, stating that the writ petition does not lie against the platform and that it should be directed towards Ayyub, the uploader of the content.

It further said that the Delhi Police ought to follow the the blocking process in terms of Section 69A of the IT Act and the 2009 Blocking Rules as Ayyub's tweets are squarely covered under the grounds provided in Section 69A.

The provision empowers the Central government to block public access to online information if it considers such action necessary in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, national security or defence, public order, maintaining friendly relations with foreign states, or for preventing the incitement of offences.

Advocate Vrinda Grover appeared for Ayyub today and stated that the writ petition was not maintainable.

After hearing the case, the High Court granted Ayyub two weeks' time to file a reply in the case, including on the issue of maintainability.

The Court will hear the matter again on May 19.

In the meantime, Delhi Police has been directed to give effect to the Court’s interim orders to transmit the necessary documents to X.

Justice Kaurav was dealing with a plea filed by Advocate Amita Sachdeva, who had earlier approached the Saket Court for criminal action against Ayyub.

Based on Sachdeva's complaint, the trial court had ordered registration of an FIR against Ayyub and directed the police to conduct an investigation. The Delhi Police later told the Court that the tweets in question were no longer on X.

It is Sachdeva's case that Ayyub’s tweets insulted Hindu Gods, Sita and Ram, Savarkar and Hindu nationalism, and spread "anti-India" sentiments. 

"That upon reading the contents of the tweets, the Petitioner, being a follower of Sanatan Dharma, was deeply hurt and aggrieved as the posts prima facie contain insults against Hindu Deities, revered historical figures, and are capable of promoting communal disharmony," Sachdeva has said.

In her petition, Sachdeva referred to six tweets made by Ayyub between 2013 and 2017.

The 2013 tweet by Ayyub read, "Ravana didn't touch Sita even though he could. Ram didn't stand for Sita even though he should have. Ravana 1 Ram 0."

In October 2014, Ayyub quoted a couplet by Ali Sardar Jafri which read, "Gareeb Sita ke ghar pe kab tak rahegi Ravan ki hukmrani, Draupadi ka libas uske badan se kab tak chhina karega".

Further, in 2015, Ayyub tweeted about Savarkar. The tweet said, "So Veer Savarkar advocated rape as necessary component of Hindutva nationalism."

In another tweet on Savarkar, Ayyub said, "Was reading Nathuram Godse's account of Savarkar & wondering if we shud continue to honour the terrorist sympathiser"

In 2016, Ayyub posted a tweet with the picture of a boy will injuries on his face. The tweet read, "Dear Indian army, am guessing this young kid was quite a threat to the sovereignty of India to be blinded for life."

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma and Advocate Rajat Nair appeared for Delhi Police and the Central government.

Advocate Ankit Parhar represented X.

Advocates Vrinda Grover and Soutik Banerjee represented Ayyub.