{"id":328552,"date":"2025-12-03T01:10:51","date_gmt":"2025-12-03T01:10:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/peraltafinancing.com\/uncategorized\/the-use-and-abuse-of-history-in-the-karnataka-high-courts-decision-in-x-corp-v-union-of-india-guest-post-constitutional-law-and-philosophy\/"},"modified":"2025-12-03T01:10:51","modified_gmt":"2025-12-03T01:10:51","slug":"the-use-and-abuse-of-history-in-the-karnataka-high-courts-decision-in-x-corp-v-union-of-india-guest-post-constitutional-law-and-philosophy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552","title":{"rendered":"The Use And Abuse of History in the Karnataka High Court\u2019s Decision in X Corp v Union of India [Guest Post] \u2013 Constitutional Law and Philosophy"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n

[This is a guest post by Krishaan Doctor<\/strong>. This is the fourth post in a series on the Karnataka High Court\u2019s decision in X Corp vs Union of India. <\/em>Read Part 1<\/mark><\/a><\/strong>, Part 2<\/mark><\/a><\/strong>, and Part 3<\/mark><\/a><\/strong>.]<\/p>\n

\n

Introduction<\/u><\/strong><\/h2>\n

In X Corp v Union of India<\/mark><\/strong><\/em><\/a>, the Karnataka High Court upheld the constitutionality of Rule 3(1)(d) of India\u2019s\u00a0IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021<\/mark><\/strong><\/a> \u00a0as well as the Sahyog Portal. \u00a0In reaching this conclusion, a facet of the Court\u2019s reasoning that is noteworthy\u2014but has received little attention\u2014is its significant reliance on history. The court began the judgement by explaining that understanding free speech in the digital epoch required a \u2018backward glance\u2019 into the history of communication and technology. To facilitate this inquiry, it framed the following two questions.<\/p>\n

\n

(i)Whether the march of human civilization \u2013 from the days of yore to the present digital age \u2013 has ever witnessed information and communication in an unregulated state; or whether regulation has been its constant companion across epochs?<\/p>\n

(ii) Whether the regimes of regulation that prevailed in earlier times continue to subsist, both in the local context of our polity and in the global order of nations?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Through its answers to these questions, the Court constructs an elaborate historical narrative that presented regulation as a timeless and inevitable counterpart of expression. History is portrayed as a linear march, in which every new technology inevitably gives rise to new regulation. The court then situates the contested IT Rules as part of this unbroken historical continuum of regulation, making them appear not as exceptional or overreaching but as part of a natural regulatory tradition. This narrative played an important role in foregrounding the Court\u2019s decision to uphold the contested provisions, and served to broadly legitimise greater state control over digital communication.<\/p>\n

This blog argues that the Court\u2019s historical reasoning suffers from several critical flaws. First<\/em>, the historical inquiry the Court embarks upon bore little relevance to the legal issues before it. Second,<\/em> the Court fails to substantiate its claim that communication has always been regulated throughout history. Third<\/em>, it deceptively weaves all historical communication regulation\u2014including administrative, licensing, infrastructural arrangements, and colonial speech laws\u2014into a continuous narrative to legitimise the contested IT Rules and the Sahyog Portal.<\/p>\n

A Fundamentally Misguided Inquiry<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

At the outset, it is important to clarify X Corp\u2019s<\/em> contention before the court\u2013\u2013because this is something that the court mischaracterises while framing the first two issues. X Corp <\/em>sought to have Rule 3(1)(d) of India\u2019s\u00a0IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021<\/mark><\/strong><\/a> declared\u00a0ultra vires\u00a0or read down to not confer an independent power to issue takedown notices. This was a challenge limited to a particular provision of the broader regulatory framework governing IT. However, the court construes X Corp\u2019s <\/em>limited claim as one that asked for \u2018unbridled freedom\u2019 [\u00b611.8] and sets out to defend the legitimacy of all forms of regulation.<\/p>\n

Through directing its inquiry in such a manner, the court tries to imply that the regulation of communication in the past legitimises, in some manner, the contentious IT Rules of today. However, this reasoning is flawed for a fairly intuitive reason: the descriptive fact that something has occurred in the past does not lend normative justification to it. For a constitutional court, what is of relevance is whether a law conforms with the tenets of the constitution\u2013\u2013and not whether it has been in operation since a very long time. While history might be relevant in construing what the constitution means, it by itself cannot be used to justify a particular law.<\/p>\n

James Balkin has argued, in the context of constitutional law, that history must function as \u2018resource\u2019<\/mark><\/strong><\/a> for making arguments about the best understandings of our constitutional commitments. However, the questions framed by the court do not appear to use history in order to better understand or interpret a particular constitutional provision. The questions pitched by the court are at too high a level of generality in order to be useful for any kind of constitutional analysis. For example, should the court hold that communication has always been regulated\u00ad<\/em> it would do little to illuminate the scope of a legal provision or the values it enshrines. Such reasoning, as precedent, could be used to justify virtually any state enactment. This present case directly engaged Article 19 of the Constitution, so a historical inquiry might have been instead directed towards understanding the meaning of \u2018reasonable restrictions\u2019.<\/p>\n

To conclude, the court\u2019s historical inquiry is a product of a mischaracterisation of X Corp\u2019s<\/em> claim, and was not tied to the understanding of any particular constitutional or legal provision. The next two sections critically analyse how the court goes about proving <\/em>the historical claims it makes.<\/p>\n

Why Regulation Is Not the \u2018Companion\u2019 of Communication<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The court, by way of the first issue, advances a sweeping historical claim: that regulation has always<\/em> been the companion of speech. My observations on the court\u2019s historical account are threefold. First, <\/em>it merely describes different communication technologies without delineating the nature of regulation they are subject to. Second<\/em>, the court\u2019s account is cherrypicked: many examples the court references as evidence to prove that communication has been universally regulated demonstrate the contrary. Third, <\/em>the claim is very easily disprovable.<\/p>\n

An Entirely Descriptive Account<\/strong><\/p>\n

The court references a variety of different communication technologies, including the couriers of the Persian Empire, the postal system in the Mauryan age, the telegraph, the the early Internet, the World Wide Web and even YouTube. [see \u00b610.01 to \u00b610.11 and \u00b610.13]<\/p>\n

However, in its extensive discussion the word \u2018regulation\u2019 appears only twice\u2013\u2013the relevant paragraphs are reproduced below.<\/p>\n

\n

Just as Kings and Parliaments of the old regulated<\/strong> the messenger, the post, the press, so too did Governments. [\u00b610.12]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

The rise of this medium(Internet)\u2026.has not been without the steadying hand of regulation<\/strong> from time to time. [\u00b610.14]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The court\u2019s engagement with regulation is highly limited\u2013\u2013despite the fact that the argument the court is trying to make is that communication has always been regulated.<\/em> Even when the court mentions regulation, it is invoked primarily as a rhetorical tool. There is no elaboration as to what regulatory mechanisms each form of communication was subject to or how regulation specifically evolved to accommodate each new technology. There is a significant logical jump involved between asserting that a specific communication technology existed and stating that technology was also regulated. A mere mention of different communication technologies\u2013\u2013as the court did\u2013\u2013does not suffice as evidence of regulatory frameworks governing them.<\/p>\n

Cherry Picking<\/strong><\/p>\n

Onto the second point, the examples the court invokes are cherry-picked<\/mark><\/strong><\/a> and could equally support a claim of\u00a0communication lacking regulation.<\/em> For instance, the court mentions the \u2018printing press\u2019 [\u00b6 10.3]. It took the Catholic Church 75 years<\/mark><\/strong><\/a> to orchestrate its censorship policies to accommodate the printing press. It was this lack of regulation that allowed the rapid dissemination of \u2018Protestant ideas\u2019 that assailed the existence and authority of the Church. The court references the \u2018birth of the internet\u2019 [\u00b6 10.6] but fails to engage with the fact that in the early years of the internet, particularly the 1990s it was notorious for being decentralised and unregulated. It was described in one book as a \u201cvirtual \u2018Wild West\u2019, an unregulated province<\/mark><\/strong><\/a> of libertarians and cyber-anarchists\u201d. There are many such examples from throughout history\u00ad\u00ad\u2013\u2013the point I am trying to make is that the historical record has been far more fragmented than what the court makes it out to be.<\/p>\n

An Impossible Claim<\/strong><\/p>\n

Lastly, two things about how the court\u2019s claim is practically impossible to prove. First proving that communication has always<\/em> been regulated would require evidence from all <\/em>of human history\u2013\u2013which is impossible to acquire. By logical corollary, that claim also cannot be conclusively proven. This also applies to the other related claim the court makes later on, that there is no nation that has left flow of information, wholly unregulated. [\u00b6 10.3] Secondly, since the claim is that communication has always<\/em> been regulated, even a singular counterexample (such as those mentioned above) would disprove it in its entirety.<\/p>\n

To conclude this section, I am unsure as to what the court was thinking in framing this particular issue. Not only was it irrelevant to the case for the reasons discussed earlier, it is both historically inaccurate and can be very easily disproven. Further, the court did not even try explain how communication was \u2018regulated\u2019 in any meaningful way.<\/p>\n

Deconstructing the Court\u2019s \u2018Historical Continuum\u2019 of Communication Laws<\/strong><\/u><\/p>\n

By way of the second issue, the court draws a continuum between past regulatory regimes, both in India and the U.S, and the present IT Rules\u2013\u2013in attempt to legitimise them as part of a broader historical trend.<\/p>\n

It lists around forty two different laws and regulations from a variety of different historical eras to conclude the following:<\/p>\n

\u201cFrom the press of the colonial era, to the digital platforms today, there has always existed a framework of law to temper liberty with responsibility, freedom with accountability<\/em>.\u201d [\u00b611.9]<\/p>\n

In this section, I catalogue the Acts\/Rules the court mentions based on the subject matter they pertain to. (This is also necessary because the court has not described most of the laws it cites.) Through this, I aim demonstrate how the Court\u2019s historical account is deceptive because of three key reasons.<\/p>\n

First,<\/em> the majority of statutes the court cites have little or no connection to speech-related restrictions. Second<\/em>, among the few laws that do pertain to speech, most are colonial-era censorship enactments whose historical and normative context is left unexamined. Third<\/em>, the regulations that pertain to proper speech restrictions and are genuinely relevant to the \u2018freedom and accountability\u2019 claim and are neither analysed nor contextualised.<\/p>\n

Indian and American Administrative\/Infrastructural\/Miscellaneous Regulations (23 statues)<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Sr No<\/strong><\/td>\nAct<\/strong><\/td>\nDescription<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1<\/td>\nRegistration of Newspapers (Central) Rules 1956<\/td>\nRegulates how<\/strong> newspapers and books are printed and published\u2013requiring registration and certain declarations<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\nPress Council of India Act 1978<\/td>\nCreated oversight mechanism for the press and set journalistic ethics<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3<\/td>\nCentral Media Accreditation Guidelines 2022<\/td>\nAccreditation\/licensing of media access<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4<\/td>\nIndian Broadcasting System 1930<\/td>\nEstablishment of state radio infrastructure<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5<\/td>\nAll India Radio (AIR) 1936<\/td>\nState-operated radio network<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6<\/td>\nCentral News Organization (CNO) 1937<\/td>\nState news infrastructure<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7<\/td>\nPrasar Bharati Act 1990<\/td>\nSemi-autonomous public broadcaster administrative oversight<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8<\/td>\nIndian Telegraph Act 1885<\/td>\nLicensing & technical operation of telegraph and telecom services<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9<\/td>\nIndian Wireless Telegraphy Act 1933<\/td>\nLicensing & spectrum regulation<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
10<\/td>\nNational Telecom Policy 1994<\/td>\nThe primary objective of the policy was to ensure India\u2019s emergence as major base of telecom equipment<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
11<\/td>\nTRAI Act 1997<\/td>\nEstablished Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
12<\/td>\nNew Telecom Policy 1999<\/td>\nUpdated the 1994 Act\u2019s regulatory framework<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
13<\/td>\nNational Telecom Policy 2012<\/td>\nModernization & licensing<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
14<\/td>\nNDCP 2018<\/td>\nDigital communications policy infra regulation.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
15<\/td>\nProhibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations 2016<\/td>\nConcerning charging of tariffs by different service providers.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
16<\/td>\nPostal Acts 1792 & 1866<\/td>\nEstablished federal control over U.S. postal services, including rates penalties, and correspondence. \u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
17<\/td>\nIndian Telegraph Act 1885<\/td>\nEstablish government control over telegraph services and formalised licensing requirements.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
18<\/td>\nMann-Elkins Act 1910<\/td>\nAmendment to regulate transport & telecommunication infrastructure<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
19<\/td>\nInterstate Commerce Act 1887<\/td>\nRegulation of interstate transport and communication infrastructure<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
20<\/td>\nRadio Act 1912<\/td>\nLicensing & spectrum regulation for radio<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
21<\/td>\nCommunications Act 1934<\/td>\nlicensing of radio and satellite communications; mostly administrative<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
22<\/td>\nCable Communications Policy Act 1984<\/td>\nLicensing & oversight of cable television networks<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
23<\/td>\nPrivacy Act 1974<\/td>\nLimits on data collection by federal agencies; affects administration of communications<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n

Colonial Era Censorship Enactments (9 statues)<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Sr no<\/strong><\/td>\nAct and Year<\/strong><\/td>\nDescription<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
1<\/td>\nCensorship of Press Act 1799<\/td>\nImposed censorship on printed material to control content and suppress dissent.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2<\/td>\nLicensing Regulations 1823<\/td>\nMade operating a press without a license an offense. Aimed at Indian-language newspapers or those edited by Indians.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3<\/td>\nPress Act or Metcalfe Act 1835<\/td>\nExpanded licensing requirements and imposed fines for \u2018seditious \u2018material<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4<\/td>\nLicensing Act 1857<\/td>\nGave the government the right to grant\/revoke licenses and prohibit the publication of any newspaper or book.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
5<\/td>\nThe Press and Registration of Books (PRB) Act 1867<\/td>\nRequired registration of books and controlled printing to monitor content<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6<\/td>\nVernacular Press Act 1878<\/td>\nTargeted vernacular language publications; enabled pre-publication censorship<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
7<\/td>\nNewspaper (Incitement to Offence) Act 1908<\/td>\nCriminalized publications that incited \u2018violence or rebellion\u2019<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
8<\/td>\nIndian Press Act 1910<\/td>\nImposed stringent controls on press freedom and expanded government powers to seize press materials<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
9<\/td>\nIndian Press (Emergency Powers) Act 1931<\/td>\nGave the government emergency powers to restrict publications during times of unrest<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n

U.S Laws Mentioned By Court: Might Have Been Relevant But Not Analysed (4 statues)<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Relevant U.S Laws<\/strong><\/td>\nDescription by Court<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Communications Decency Act (CDA) 1996<\/td>\nCriminalized display of offensive material to minors while shielding online intermediaries from liability for third party content [\u00b611.8] \u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
PATRIOT Act 2001<\/td>\nThe core purpose was to deter terrorism, expand law enforcement investigatory abilities [\u00b611.5] \u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
EARN-IT Act 2022<\/td>\nEliminate abusive and rampant misuse of interactive Technologies. The Act brings in, a federal frame work in prevention of online sexual exploitation of children [[\u00b611.6] \u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Deepfakes 2022+(TAKE IT DOWN ACT)<\/td>\nThe purport of \u2018TAKE IT DOWN Act\u2019 is plain to shield dignity and to prevent exploitation in the digital public square and to criminalize non-consensual intimate imagery and seeking to govern the ungoverned expanse of cyberspace, as law and morality [\u00b611.7] \u00a0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n

The three Indian laws\u2013\u2013Cinematograph Act 1952 (introduced U,UA,A,S film certification), Cable Television Rules 1994 and 1995 (set content standards for cable television\u2013\u2013that could be construed as relevant to speech restriction are not even described <\/em>by the court.<\/p>\n

Analysis of Findings<\/strong><\/p>\n

A significant majority <\/em>(24) of these laws dealt with only administrative, infrastructural or economic facets of communication. Indeed, a law that that attempts to universalise access to telephones or build radio infrastructure relate to communication in a broader sense. However, X Corp <\/em>was about a singular facet of communication\u00ad\u00ad, which related to freedom of speech on digital platforms. Additionally, the claim that a communication law balanced \u2018liberty with accountability\u2019 generally refers to the extent of permitted speech and the restrictions imposed upon it. Thus, insofar as the court attempts to construct a narrative of continuity\u2013\u2013between these historical laws and the contentious IT Rules and Sahyog Portal\u00ad\u00ad\u2013\u2013it fails to do so. It is also to be noted that even if these laws did pertain to \u2018speech\u2019 they would not by themselves provide sufficient warrant for the laws because of the normative\/descriptive distinction discussed in the first section.<\/p>\n

A sizeable chunk <\/em>(9) of laws the court mentions are colonial era enactments. It is deeply concerning that a constitutional court has referenced the likes of the Vernacular Press Act 1848 and Licensing Act 1857 in a case engaging Article 19 of the Constitution. The court later refers to these historical laws as ones that \u2018tempered liberty with responsibility\u2019. [\u00b611.9] Surely, and one hopes, the Court did not mean to rely on such repressive enactments as precedents for construing a constitutional right.<\/p>\n

A select set of American legislations may have been relevant for the court\u2019s analysis\u2014however, the court\u2019s engagement with them is limited to mere description. It does not explain what principle each legislation might illuminate or how theX Corp<\/em> situation might be analogous. Ironically, the Communications Decency Act (CDA)\u2013\u2013described by the court as a law that shielded i<\/strong>ntermediaries for third party content\u2013\u2013directly supports X Corp\u2019s<\/em> position in the case (X Corp\u2019s \u2018safe harbour\u2019 status was threatened if it did not comply with directives from the Sahyog Portal). Similarly, the few Indian laws that bore some relation to the broad fora of speech regulation are not analysed or contextualised.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

This essay demonstrated the major defects of the Court\u2019s historical reasoning in X Corp<\/em>. Firstly, the inquiry it undertook was a product of a complete mischaracterisation of X Corp<\/em>\u2019s contentions and was far too general and ambiguous to be relevant to any kind of constitutional analysis. Secondly, the court\u2019s primary claim (that communication has always been regulated) is something that the court does not even try to prove. In addressing the first issue, the court rarely even mentions regulation and when it does it lacks any genuine engagement. In the second issue, the court\u2019s engagement with regulation was entirely descriptive in nature\u2013\u2013and deeply misleading insofar as it tried to justify a speech based restriction on the basis of laws that pertained to subjects as diverse as telecommunications infrastructure, licensing of radio and censorship under a colonial regime.<\/p>\n

Further, the court\u2019s historical account does not reflect a bonafide attempt to reach the truth; rather it reads like an ex post facto rationalisation of an already predetermined conclusion. Throughout the decision, there is lack of analytical and reasoned engagement with history and yet, the court seems to reach a highly sweeping conclusion. It is a matter of great concern that this unreasoned narrative is then used to legitimise greater state control over speech.<\/p>\n

Lastly, another reason why we must pay more attention to the court\u2019s historical inquiry is because of the seriously diminished standard of judicial reasoning at play. It is disappointing that a bench of a high court is asking questions such as whether communication has ever been \u2018unregulated\u2019 or \u2018always has been regulated\u2019. These kind of questions reduce a much more complicated historical spectrum into a crude dichotomy. Had the court recognised that regulation exists in different degrees or forms, we could have seen a far more intellectually honest historical inquiry.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

[This is a guest post by Krishaan Doctor. This is the fourth post in a series on the Karnataka High Court\u2019s decision in X Corp vs Union of India. Read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.] Introduction In X Corp v Union of India, the Karnataka High Court upheld the constitutionality of Rule 3(1)(d) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":303090,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[97860,105672,154870,154871,134708],"tags":[16834,20997,21163,12794,18355,4251,1521,3734,8707,126580,12685,23920,2649,10855],"dealstore":[],"offerexpiration":[],"class_list":["post-328552","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-free-speech","category-freedom-of-speech","category-intermediary-liability","category-internet-freedom","category-it-act","tag-abuse","tag-constitutional","tag-corp","tag-courts","tag-decision","tag-guest","tag-high","tag-history","tag-india","tag-karnataka","tag-law","tag-philosophy","tag-post","tag-union"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Use And Abuse of History in the Karnataka High Court\u2019s Decision in X Corp v Union of India [Guest Post] \u2013 Constitutional Law and Philosophy - Som2ny Network<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Use And Abuse of History in the Karnataka High Court\u2019s Decision in X Corp v Union of India [Guest Post] \u2013 Constitutional Law and Philosophy - Som2ny Network\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"[This is a guest post by Krishaan Doctor. This is the fourth post in a series on the Karnataka High Court\u2019s decision in X Corp vs Union of India. Read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.] Introduction In X Corp v Union of India, the Karnataka High Court upheld the constitutionality of Rule 3(1)(d) […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Som2ny Network\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-12-03T01:10:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/blank.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/person\/b85e3c3dc0e1daea076524dc8810c371\"},\"headline\":\"The Use And Abuse of History in the Karnataka High Court\u2019s Decision in X Corp v Union of India [Guest Post] \u2013 Constitutional Law and Philosophy\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-12-03T01:10:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552\"},\"wordCount\":2888,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/blank.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Abuse\",\"constitutional\",\"Corp\",\"Courts\",\"Decision\",\"Guest\",\"High\",\"history\",\"India\",\"Karnataka\",\"law\",\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Post\",\"Union\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Free Speech\",\"Freedom of Speech\",\"intermediary liability\",\"Internet Freedom\",\"IT ACT\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552\",\"name\":\"The Use And Abuse of History in the Karnataka High Court\u2019s Decision in X Corp v Union of India [Guest Post] \u2013 Constitutional Law and Philosophy - Som2ny Network\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/blank.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-12-03T01:10:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/blank.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/blank.jpg\",\"width\":200,\"height\":200},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?bp_activities=1\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Use And Abuse of History in the Karnataka High Court\u2019s Decision in X Corp v Union of India [Guest Post] \u2013 Constitutional Law and Philosophy\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/\",\"name\":\"Som2ny Network\",\"description\":\"Daily Deals\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Som2ny Network\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/4a0953c4-logo-300x86-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/4a0953c4-logo-300x86-1.png\",\"width\":300,\"height\":86,\"caption\":\"Som2ny Network\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/person\/b85e3c3dc0e1daea076524dc8810c371\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/729ae85bf62b9917e93538db2f2688ca?s=96&r=g&default=https%3A%2F%2Ffivemor.com%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Fbuddypress-first-letter-avatar%2Fimages%2Fdefault%2F96%2Flatin_a.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/729ae85bf62b9917e93538db2f2688ca?s=96&r=g&default=https%3A%2F%2Ffivemor.com%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Fbuddypress-first-letter-avatar%2Fimages%2Fdefault%2F96%2Flatin_a.png\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Use And Abuse of History in the Karnataka High Court\u2019s Decision in X Corp v Union of India [Guest Post] \u2013 Constitutional Law and Philosophy - Som2ny Network","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Use And Abuse of History in the Karnataka High Court\u2019s Decision in X Corp v Union of India [Guest Post] \u2013 Constitutional Law and Philosophy - Som2ny Network","og_description":"[This is a guest post by Krishaan Doctor. This is the fourth post in a series on the Karnataka High Court\u2019s decision in X Corp vs Union of India. Read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.] Introduction In X Corp v Union of India, the Karnataka High Court upheld the constitutionality of Rule 3(1)(d) […]","og_url":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552","og_site_name":"Som2ny Network","article_published_time":"2025-12-03T01:10:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":200,"height":200,"url":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/blank.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/person\/b85e3c3dc0e1daea076524dc8810c371"},"headline":"The Use And Abuse of History in the Karnataka High Court\u2019s Decision in X Corp v Union of India [Guest Post] \u2013 Constitutional Law and Philosophy","datePublished":"2025-12-03T01:10:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552"},"wordCount":2888,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/blank.jpg","keywords":["Abuse","constitutional","Corp","Courts","Decision","Guest","High","history","India","Karnataka","law","PHILOSOPHY","Post","Union"],"articleSection":["Free Speech","Freedom of Speech","intermediary liability","Internet Freedom","IT ACT"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552","url":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552","name":"The Use And Abuse of History in the Karnataka High Court\u2019s Decision in X Corp v Union of India [Guest Post] \u2013 Constitutional Law and Philosophy - Som2ny Network","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/blank.jpg","datePublished":"2025-12-03T01:10:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/blank.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/blank.jpg","width":200,"height":200},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=328552#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?bp_activities=1"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Use And Abuse of History in the Karnataka High Court\u2019s Decision in X Corp v Union of India [Guest Post] \u2013 Constitutional Law and Philosophy"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/","name":"Som2ny Network","description":"Daily Deals","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#organization","name":"Som2ny Network","url":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/4a0953c4-logo-300x86-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/4a0953c4-logo-300x86-1.png","width":300,"height":86,"caption":"Som2ny Network"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/person\/b85e3c3dc0e1daea076524dc8810c371","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/729ae85bf62b9917e93538db2f2688ca?s=96&r=g&default=https%3A%2F%2Ffivemor.com%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Fbuddypress-first-letter-avatar%2Fimages%2Fdefault%2F96%2Flatin_a.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/729ae85bf62b9917e93538db2f2688ca?s=96&r=g&default=https%3A%2F%2Ffivemor.com%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Fbuddypress-first-letter-avatar%2Fimages%2Fdefault%2F96%2Flatin_a.png","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/fivemor.com"],"url":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/328552","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=328552"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/328552\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/303090"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=328552"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=328552"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=328552"},{"taxonomy":"dealstore","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fdealstore&post=328552"},{"taxonomy":"offerexpiration","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fofferexpiration&post=328552"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}