4 min readVadodaraApr 18, 2026 05:03 AM IST
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), in an affidavit before the Gujarat High Court, has observed “persistent pattern of non-responsiveness” and “lack of meaningful cooperation with lawfully issued directions” for taking down URLs by Elon Musk’s X Corp (formerly Twitter).
The affidavit, which was in response to a petition raising concerns over artificial intelligence (AI)-generated deepfake content on digital platforms, also cited “selective application of technical capabilities” as X Corp had allegedly removed unlawful and sensitive AI-generated content regarding the US-Israel and Iran conflict within the US jurisdiction. Accusing X of glaring double standards, the affidavit said “the same level of proactive detection and prevention mechanism” was not visibly deployed when it came to Indian users and Indian jurisdiction.
The Centre’s statement noted that in the three years since 2024, it had sent 94 takedown notices to X, of which the microblogging platform responded to only 13. In a comprehensive 35-page affidavit by the Indian Cyber Crime Co-ordination Centre (I4C), which comes under the MHA, that was signed by deputy general manager Rahulkant Sahu, the MHA submitted that while companies such as Meta and Google have fully integrated with the government’s centralised cybercrime network, other intermediaries, particularly X, have “not yet onboarded or fully integrated with the portal and often fail to respond to the statutory notices issued”.
The affidavit was submitted in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Vikas Vijay Nair, seeking legal reforms and regulatory directions to authorities concerned. The PIL prays for the regulations against the misuse of AI in the creation and circulation of fake and manipulated videos and photographs, especially those targeting “constitutional and statutory authorities” on digital platforms. The MHA affidavit filed in reply to a notice issued by the division bench of Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal and Justice D N Ray, stated that while the statutory architecture to tackle digital misuse was fully operational, the primary challenge remained the blatant non-compliance of certain social media giants — most notably, X Corp.
The I4C disclosed that X had not onboarded nor fully integrated with the SAHYOG portal, the platform to expedite the removal of unlawful content, till date and repeatedly ignored statutory directives issued under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000. Citing figures in the affidavit, the MHA stated, “This consistent non-responsiveness is amply substantiated by the official data of the I4C, MHA, for 2024, 2025 and 2026. During this period, 94 intimations were sent to X Corp., comprising 60 intimations in 2024 (relating to 1,029 URLs), 33 intimations in 2025 (relating to 121 URLs) and an intimation in 2026 (relating to 10 URLs), aggregating 1,160 URLs containing unlawful content, including synthetically generated information (SGI). X Corp provided formal reply to merely 13 of these intimations — a response rate of less than 14%, establishes a persistent pattern of non-responsiveness and lack of meaningful cooperation with lawfully issued directions…”
The MHA also accused X of glaring double standards. The affidavit contended that during the recent US-Israel conflict with Iran, X proactively deployed advanced automated tools to instantly detect and remove sensitive AI-generated content within US jurisdiction: “A glaring example of the selective application of technical capabilities.”
The affidavit read, “…It has recently come to light during the ongoing US-Israel (Iran) conflict. It has been observed that X Corp. is proactively identifying and taking down all Al-generated/ synthetically generated content relating to the US-Israel war across its platform within US jurisdiction. This demonstrates that X Corp possesses the advanced technical capability, automated tools and detection mechanisms to proactively detect, flag and remove unlawful or sensitive Al-generated media content in real time… However, the same level of proactive detection and prevention mechanism is absent… when it comes to Indian users and jurisdiction.”
