The story up to now:
The Karnataka Excessive Court docket has dismissed X Corp’s petition in opposition to the Union authorities’s Sahyog portal, which permits content material takedown beneath Part 79(3)(b) of the Info Know-how (IT) Act, 2000. The ruling marks a setback for X’s (beforehand Twitter) months-long litigation and endorses the federal government’s content material regulation framework, which has already been adopted by 38 intermediaries, together with Microsoft, Amazon, Google and Telegram. Delivering the decision, Justice M. Nagaprasanna mentioned that social media “can’t be left in a state of anarchic freedom” and that India’s digital house couldn’t be handled as a “mere playground the place info will be disseminated in defiance of statutes.”
How does the Sahyog portal function?
Launched by the Union Ministry of Residence Affairs (MHA) in October 2024, the Sahyog portal is operated by the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C) as a centralised platform for issuing takedown orders to web intermediaries, together with telecom operators, web service suppliers, social media platforms, and web-hosting providers. Its objective is to implement Part 79 of the IT Act, which grants intermediaries “secure harbour” safety — shielding them from legal responsibility for user-generated content material. As an example, a platform can not ordinarily be sued for a defamatory put up revealed by a consumer. The authorized legal responsibility rests solely with the person who created the content material.
Nonetheless, this safety is conditional. Underneath Part 79(3)(b), intermediaries lose their immunity if, after receiving “precise data” from a authorities company about illegal info, they fail to “expeditiously take away or disable entry” to it. The portal was launched to automate and streamline the issuance of such notices. Its existence was first disclosed in Shabana versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors (2024), a Delhi Excessive Court docket case regarding a lacking 19-year-old. Through the proceedings, the courtroom careworn the necessity for a mechanism to facilitate real-time coordination between intermediaries and legislation enforcement in time-sensitive circumstances.
Court docket information reviewed by The Hindu present that almost a 3rd of the 66 takedown notices despatched to X by I4C over the previous 12 months focused posts about Union Ministers and Central authorities companies. Posts referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Residence Minister Amit Shah and his son Jay Shah, Minister of State for Residence Affairs Bandi Sanjay Kumar, and Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman had been amongst these flagged for removing.
Why did X go to courtroom?
In March, Elon Musk-owned X filed a writ petition within the Karnataka Excessive Court docket difficult the legality of the Sahyog portal, which it described as a “censorship portal.” The corporate argued that the federal government was invoking Part 79(3)(b) of the IT Act to sidestep the stricter and extra clear process beneath Part 69A.
In keeping with X, the 2 provisions serve distinct functions. Part 79 merely grants intermediaries secure harbour safety from legal responsibility for user-generated content material, whereas Part 69A empowers the Centre to dam on-line materials, however solely on grounds that mirror the affordable restrictions on free speech beneath Article 19(2) of the Structure equivalent to for upholding sovereignty and integrity of India, safety of the State, pleasant relations with international States, preserving public order and so forth. Notably, Part 69A additionally mandates that the federal government represent a committee, give intermediaries an opportunity to be heard, and concern a reasoned written order, thereby making certain the opportunity of judicial evaluation.
To bolster its case, X relied on the Supreme Court docket’s landmark ruling in Shreya Singhal versus Union of India (2015), which struck down Part 66A of the IT Act for vagueness and upheld Part 69A as the only constitutionally legitimate framework for limiting on-line content material, topic to procedural safeguards. The courtroom had clarified that takedown instructions beneath Part 79(3)(b) might solely comply with a courtroom order or a proper authorities notification, and should stay tethered to the constitutional grounds in Article 19(2), as mirrored in Part 69A. By allowing 1000’s of officers throughout each Union and State governments to concern notices by way of Sahyog, X argued, the Centre had created a “parallel” and “illegal” censorship regime that lacked these safeguards.
In assist of X’s problem, DigiPub, an affiliation of 92 digital information retailers, additionally intervened within the proceedings, contending that takedown orders routed by way of Sahyog had a disproportionate affect on its members, whose reporting was ceaselessly focused.
What was the federal government’s defence?
The Union authorities defended Sahyog as a essential regulatory mechanism. It argued that the distinctive nature of the Web, with its algorithm-driven virality, required stricter oversight than conventional media. Protected harbour, it mentioned, was a statutory privilege, not an inherent proper, and platforms that did not act on illegal content material notices would forfeit this safety. Sahyog merely operationalised this obligation by making a streamlined channel for such notices.
Rejecting the allegation that it had created a parallel blocking regime, the federal government emphasised that Sections 79 and 69A operated independently. Non-compliance with a Sahyog discover, it argued, didn’t quantity to direct censorship however solely to the lack of authorized immunity. The portal, it insisted, was merely an administrative instrument to facilitate swift motion in opposition to unlawful on-line content material.
The federal government additionally questioned X Corp’s locus standi, mentioning that as a international company, it couldn’t invoke elementary rights beneath Article 19, which ensures the liberty of speech and expression completely to Indian residents. Represented by Solicitor Common Tushar Mehta, the Union authorities contended that X was searching for “particular remedy” in India whereas complying with comparable regulatory regimes elsewhere. It additional identified that X was the one main middleman but to combine with Sahyog.
What has the Excessive Court docket dominated?
Dismissing X’s problem as “devoid of benefit,” Justice Nagaprasanna described Sahyog as each an “instrument of public good” and a “beacon of cooperation between citizen and middleman.” He emphasised that oversight was particularly important in circumstances affecting the dignity of ladies.
The courtroom additionally upheld the Centre’s objection to X’s authorized standing, ruling that Article 19 of the Structure is a “constitution of rights conferred upon residents solely.” Since X just isn’t a citizen of India, it dominated that “the protecting embrace of Article 19 can’t be invoked” by the corporate. Issuing a stern warning to international social media firms, the judgment warned that India couldn’t be handled as a “playground” the place info is disseminated “in defiance of the legislation” and later disowned by way of “a posture of detachment.” Entry into the Indian market, the courtroom underscored, is a “privilege tied to accountability and accountability,” and no platform can declare exemption from the nation’s authorized framework.
In a pointed critique of X’s conduct, Justice Nagaprasanna noticed that the platform complied with takedown regimes in the USA, “but the identical platform refuses to adjust to takedown instructions on this nation”. Referring to the U.S. Take It Down Act, 2025, which criminalises the publication of AI-generated deepfakes and non-consensual intimate imagery, he famous that X readily adhered to U.S. legal guidelines that impose prison legal responsibility for non-compliance, however resisted equal obligations in India.
The courtroom additionally rejected X’s principal rivalry that the Sahyog portal lacked statutory backing and that Part 79(3)(b) of the IT Act didn’t authorise content material takedown.
Justice Nagaprasanna reasoned that the Supreme Court docket’s ruling in Shreya Singhal was anchored within the now-defunct Info Know-how Guidelines of 2011 and couldn’t be “transposed” to the current context.
The 2021 IT Guidelines, he held, are “contemporary of their conception and distinct of their design” and subsequently “demand their very own interpretative body, unsaddled by precedents that addressed a bygone regime.”
What are the implications?
Prateek Waghre, Head of Packages at Tech International Institute, instructed The Hindu that the Excessive Court docket’s ruling dangers enabling an unchecked growth of state management over on-line content material. “The issue lies within the absence of clear, slender, and goal standards for what constitutes illegal content material. In apply, that is more likely to end in broader censorship of knowledge that fosters political accountability, in addition to the suppression of views throughout the spectrum,” he mentioned.
Mr. Waghre cautioned that content material takedowns, whether or not initiated by platforms or directed by legislation enforcement, usually are not a sustainable answer, since each actors typically function selectively and in self-serving methods. “Legislation enforcement already has mechanisms to prosecute dangerous speech beneath prison codes, however these are enforced inconsistently and subjectively. With out deeper social and political reforms that disincentivise dangerous expression and curb selective enforcement, the trade-off between curbing abuse of energy and safeguarding free expression will endure. There are not any simple fixes right here”.
In an announcement issued on September 29, X mentioned it was “deeply involved” by the single-judge verdict and would file an enchantment. Nonetheless, it didn’t make clear whether or not the problem could be positioned earlier than a bigger Bench of the Karnataka Excessive Court docket or taken on to the Supreme Court docket.
X additional argued that the ruling was inconsistent with a Bombay Excessive Court docket judgment delivered final 12 months in September, which struck down the Union authorities’s Press Info Bureau fact-checking unit on the bottom that it violated ideas of pure justice by allowing unilateral determinations by the manager.