What’s in Today’s Article?

• X Section 79 Challenge Latest News
• Shreya Singhal Case & Section 69A of the IT Act
• Government’s Use of Section 79 of the IT Act
• X’s Legal Challenge Against Section 79(3)(b) Orders
• X Section 79 Challenge FAQs

X Section 79 Challenge Latest News

• Elon Musk-owned X (formerly Twitter) has challenged the Indian government's use of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000 for content moderation and removal orders. 
• The company argues that this provision is being misused to bypass the safeguards provided under Section 69A, which is specifically designed for content regulation. 
• X contends that the government's approach undermines due process and transparency in content moderation.

Shreya Singhal Case & Section 69A of the IT Act

• SC Strikes Down Section 66A (2015)
  • In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized sending false information causing "annoyance or inconvenience." 
  • The Court held it unconstitutionally vague, giving excessive power to the government to restrict free speech.
• Section 69A Becomes the Primary Law
  • After this decision, Section 69A became the main law governing online content moderation. 
  • It empowers the Centre to block content hosted on any digital platform if deemed necessary under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
• Safeguards & Justification
  • Unlike Section 66A, Section 69A includes safeguards:
  • Blocking orders must be necessary under reasonable restrictions outlined in Article 19(2) (e.g., sovereignty, security, public order, morality, etc.).
  • The government must record reasons for blocking, allowing legal challenges.

Government’s Use of Section 79 of the IT Act

• Section 79: Safe Harbour for Intermediaries
  • Section 79 of the IT Act provides "safe harbour" protection to intermediaries (such as X), shielding them from liability for third-party content. 
  • However, Section 79(3)(b) states that intermediaries can be held liable if they fail to remove unlawful content after receiving actual knowledge or a government notification.
• SC’s Restriction on Section 79(3)(b) (Shreya Singhal Case)
  • In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court limited the scope of Section 79(3)(b), ruling that removal obligations apply only when:
    • A court order directs removal, or
    • The government issues a notification, but only if the content violates Article 19(2) restrictions (e.g., national security, public order, defamation).
• Government’s Expanded Use of Section 79(3)(b)
  • October 2023: The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) issued a directive allowing ministries, state governments, and police to issue blocking orders under Section 79(3)(b).
  • October 2024: MeitY launched "Sahyog", a portal enabling authorities to issue and upload blocking orders, potentially expanding censorship beyond the SC’s prescribed limits.

X’s Legal Challenge Against Section 79(3)(b) Orders

• Allegations of Bypassing Safeguards
  • X has challenged the Ministry of Electronics and IT (MeitY) before the Karnataka High Court, arguing that its content removal orders under Section 79(3)(b)bypass the safeguards outlined in Section 69A. 
  • The company cites the Shreya Singhal ruling, asserting that content can only be censored through Section 69A procedures or a court order.
• X’s Argument on Section 79
  • X contends that Section 79 is only a “safe harbour” provision that shields intermediaries from liability for third-party content. 
  • It argues that the government is now misusing this provision to create an “unlawful blocking regime” without the legal protections mandated by law.
• The Grok Controversy & Safe Harbour Debate
  • X’s AI chatbot, Grok 3, has been under scrutiny for using Hindi slang and posting government-critical responses.
  • While X hasn’t received an official notice, the Centre has reportedly contacted the company.
  • A key legal question now arises: Does AI-generated content fall under "third-party" content for safe harbour protection under Section 79? 
  • Courts will need to determine whether X is liable for Grok’s responses.

X Section 79 Challenge FAQs

Q1. Why is X challenging the government’s use of Section 79?

Ans. X argues that Section 79(3)(b) is being misused to bypass legal safeguards for content moderation under Section 69A.

Q2. What legal protections does Section 79 provide?

Ans. Section 79 grants intermediaries safe harbour, shielding them from liability for third-party content unless ordered by courts or authorities.

Q3. How did the Shreya Singhal case impact Section 79?

Ans. The 2015 ruling limited content takedowns under Section 79 to cases where a court or government order meets constitutional restrictions.

Q4. What is X’s main argument in court?

Ans. X claims that Section 79 is being misused to create an unlawful censorship mechanism without the due process of Section 69A.

Q5. How does the Grok controversy relate to Section 79?

Ans. The debate over whether AI-generated content qualifies as third-party speech under Section 79 raises new legal questions for AI accountability.

Source: IE | IE | HT

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Grok AI Controversy Latest News
• Grok
• Fixing the Responsibility
• Legal Accountability for AI Speech
• Broader AI Regulation Challenges
• Grok AI Controversy FAQs

Grok AI Controversy Latest News

• The Indian government is engaging with Elon Musk’s X over controversial responses generated by its AI chatbot, Grok. The chatbot has produced profane and biased remarks, labeling some conservative users, including Musk, as misinformation spreaders. 
• Grok’s responses reflect the attitudes prevalent on the platform, raising concerns about accountability. While Grok is merely a computer code processing fed data, its "intelligence" remains debatable. 
• Instances like using a misogynistic Hindi expletive and making inflammatory statements have prompted users to bombard it with more questions, intensifying the debate over AI responsibility.

Grok

• Grok derives its name from the sci-fi novel Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein, meaning “to fully and profoundly understand something,” as explained by Elon Musk.

Musk’s ‘Anti-Woke’ AI Vision

• Musk positioned Grok as a counter to AI models like ChatGPT and Gemini, claiming they exhibit left-wing bias. 
• In an interview, he expressed concerns over AI being trained to be politically correct and instead sought to create a "spicy" and unfiltered AI.

Unique Features of Grok

• Access to Real-Time X Data: Unlike other chatbots, Grok searches and utilizes public posts on X for up-to-date responses.
• Integration with X: Users can tag Grok in their posts to receive direct responses.
• Unhinged Mode: A feature for premium users that may generate inappropriate or offensive content.

Concerns Over Direct Publishing

• Experts highlighted the risk of unchecked AI-generated content spreading on X, which could lead to real-world consequences like misinformation-driven violence. 
• He argues that Grok’s integration with X, rather than its output alone, poses the greatest threat.

Fixing the Responsibility

• Internet platforms like X, Meta, and YouTube are protected under safe harbour laws, meaning they are not liable for content posted by users. 
• However, whether this protection extends to AI-generated content like Grok’s responses remains a legal grey area.

The Complexity of Holding AI Accountable

• Grok is trained on the open internet, including content from X users. 
• This raises the question: if its output is based on human-generated data, can the creators or the platform be held responsible? 
• Comparing it to suing the ocean for being wet, legal experts find it difficult to pinpoint accountability.

Free Speech and AI

• In India, freedom of expression is a fundamental right with reasonable restrictions—but it applies to humans, not AI. 
• Grok’s responses are determined by its code and dataset, making the concept of "AI free speech" debatable.

Who is Responsible

• The responsibility may lie with xAI (Grok’s creators) and X for allowing unfiltered responses. 
• But holding developers accountable is tricky—should blame fall on high-level engineers or low-wage data annotators? 
• Governments worldwide are struggling with this unanswered regulatory challenge.

Legal Accountability for AI Speech

• The question of who is responsible for AI-generated content remains complex, but legal precedents suggest that deployers of AI systems can be held liable.

Air Canada Case: AI as a Publisher

• In a landmark ruling, Air Canada was ordered to honor a false refund policy created by its AI chatbot.
• The court rejected the airline’s claim that it was not responsible for the chatbot’s responses.
• This ruling suggests that AI chatbots can be treated as publishers under certain circumstances.

Context Matters in AI Accountability

• The level of responsibility depends on the context in which an AI system is deployed.
• A chatbot providing medical guidance would be held to a higher standard than an AI like Grok on X, which is used for general conversations.

Safe Harbour for AI Developers

• Experts propose a safe harbour framework to protect AI developers from liability if they follow due diligence measures.
• This framework could be modeled after end-user license agreements (EULAs) and user conduct policies that some companies already apply to their large language models (LLMs).

Broader AI Regulation Challenges

• The incident highlights critical concerns:
  • AI-generated misinformation
  • Accountability for AI outputs
  • Content moderation difficulties
  • Need for procedural safeguards
• It also revives debates over the central government’s withdrawn AI advisory from last year, signaling ongoing tensions between regulation and innovation.

Grok AI Controversy FAQs

Q1. What is Grok AI and why is it controversial?

Ans. Grok AI, developed by xAI, is under scrutiny for generating offensive content and influencing political discourse on X.

Q2. How does Grok differ from other AI chatbots?

Ans. Grok accesses real-time X data, provides “spicy” responses, and features an unfiltered mode for premium users.

Q3. Is Grok legally protected under safe harbour laws?

Ans. Legal experts debate whether AI-generated content falls under intermediary protection, raising accountability concerns for X and xAI.

Q4. What are the concerns over Grok’s integration with X?

Ans. Experts worry Grok’s direct publishing on X could spread misinformation unchecked, leading to real-world harm.

Q5. How might governments regulate AI-generated speech?

Ans. Governments are exploring AI accountability laws, balancing regulation with free speech protections and innovation concerns.

Source: IE | IE | BBC

What’s in Today’s Article?

• GM Food Crops Latest News
• Background: The GM Mustard Controversy
• Significance of GM Mustard
• Government’s Stand on GM Crops
• Supreme Court Proceedings and Split Verdict
• Concerns Raised by Activist Groups
• India’s Growing Bio-Economy and Role of GM Crops
• Way Ahead
• GM Food Crops in India FAQs

GM Food Crops Latest News

• Ahead of a fresh series of hearings in the Supreme Court next month over genetically modified (GM) food crops, the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) said there was “progress” on this front.

Background: The GM Mustard Controversy

• India’s efforts to promote genetically modified (GM) food crops are once again under national spotlight. 
• The Supreme Court is scheduled to begin hearings on April 15, 2025, over petitions challenging the Environment Ministry’s 2022 approval for the commercial cultivation of GM mustard.
• The debate reflects a clash between scientific innovation and environmental activism, with the government pushing for biotechnology advancement while activist groups question the safety and ecological impact of GM food crops.

Significance of GM Mustard

• GM mustard is India’s first genetically modified food crop to receive conditional approval for commercial release by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC)—a scientific panel under the Ministry of Environment.
• Developed using public funds, the crop was intended to boost yields and reduce import dependency. 
• However, due to legal challenges and safety concerns, it has not been cultivated commercially.

Government’s Stand on GM Crops

• Speaking at a biotechnology event, Department of Biotechnology (DBT) Secretary Rajesh Gokhale acknowledged that while the matter is subjudice, “progress” is being made on GM food crops. 
• The DBT, under the Ministry of Science and Technology, has long funded research into transgenic crops.
• Science and Technology Minister Jitendra Singh emphasized the importance of embracing innovation, stating,
• “There is so much dynamism in biotechnology development that we cannot look at tomorrow through the prism of today.”
• The DBT has also submitted technical inputs to the Environment Ministry, which is tasked with formulating a national policy on GM crops, as directed by the Supreme Court in an earlier verdict.

Supreme Court Proceedings and Split Verdict

• In July 2024, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the Environment Ministry’s 2022 approval of GM mustard. 
• The matter was then referred to a larger bench, which will now begin hearings from April 15, 2025.
• The Court has asked all involved parties to submit their written statements before the proceedings begin. 
• The case is seen as a landmark moment for India’s future biotechnology and agricultural policies.

Concerns Raised by Activist Groups

• Several environmental and farmer groups have strongly opposed GM mustard, citing:
  • Potential ecological harm, including threats to pollinators like bees.
  • Lack of long-term safety data for human consumption.
  • Insufficient transparency in the approval process.
• These groups argue that GM food crops could disrupt traditional farming systems and compromise India’s biodiversity and seed sovereignty.

India’s Growing Bio-Economy and Role of GM Crops

• Despite regulatory hurdles, GM crops play a key role in India's emerging bio-economy, as highlighted in a report released by the DBT.
• Key Highlights from the Bio-Economy Report (2024):
  • India’s total bio-economy value: $165.7 billion
  • Bio-agriculture share: $13.5 billion (8.1%)
  • GM crops like Bt Cotton have significantly contributed to increased agricultural productivity.
  • Bio-industrial sector (biofuels, bioplastics, enzymes): 47% of the total bio-economy
  • Biopharma: 35%
  • Bio-IT and research services: 9%
  • India had 10,075 biotech startups in 2024, expected to grow to 22,500 by 2030, creating 35 million jobs.
  • Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Telangana lead in bio-economy contributions.

Way Ahead

• The future of GM food crops in India depends on:
  • Judicial clarity on environmental and health concerns.
  • Policy formulation to balance innovation with biosafety.
  • Public awareness and stakeholder engagement to address misinformation and mistrust.
• With the BioE3 policy focusing on creating new agricultural products using biotechnology, GM crops like mustard could be part of India’s long-term strategy for food security, climate resilience, and global competitiveness—but only if supported by sound legal and ethical frameworks.

GM Food Crops in India FAQs

Q1. What is GM mustard and why is it significant?

Ans. GM mustard is India’s first genetically modified food crop approved for commercial cultivation, aimed at increasing yield and reducing imports.

Q2. Why is GM mustard facing legal challenges?

Ans. Activist groups have challenged its approval citing safety, environmental, and procedural concerns, prompting Supreme Court intervention.

Q3. What is the government's stance on GM crops?

Ans. The government supports biotechnology for agricultural advancement and is developing a national policy on GM food crops.

Q4. How do GM crops fit into India’s bio-economy?

Ans. GM crops enhance productivity and resilience, contributing to India's $165.7 billion bio-economy, especially in bio-agriculture.

Q5. When will the Supreme Court hear the GM mustard case?

Ans. The hearings are scheduled to begin on April 15, 2025, before a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court.

Source: TH