Maria Jawed, R Girish
This article argues that Indian law on platform governance has split into two competing doctrinal models. The Bombay High Court’s decision in Kunal Kamra v Union of India (2024) advances a rights-first approach grounded in judicial oversight and constitutional safeguards, while the Karnataka High Court’s ruling in X Corp v Union of India (2025) endorses an executive-first model centred on opaque, State-controlled digital portals. The article situates this conflict within the evolving framework of the Information Technology Act 2000, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (DPDP Act), examining how these instruments reallocate regulatory power among the State, platforms and users. Drawing on the framework of Digital Constitutionalism, it contends that the post-2021 regime notably traceability mandate under the IT Rules 2021 and broad State exemptions under the DPDP Act 2023, weakens constraints on executive power, undermines institutional independence and structurally incentivises collateral censorship. A limited comparison with the EU’s Digital Services Act and Brazil’s Marco Civil da Internet 2014 demonstrates that such outcomes are design choices, not technological inevitabilities. The article concludes with doctrinal reforms aimed at restoring court-centred review, narrowing data-protection exemptions, protecting encryption and establishing an independent, multi-stakeholder digital regulator.