Social media takedown notices should be sent “cautiously” and prudently: IT Secy

Secretary of Electronics and Information Technology S. Krishnan said at a workshop on Tuesday (October 7, 2025) that government agencies need to be “prudent” in sending takedown notices to social media companies; ensure that such notices are sent under the appropriate section of the IT Act, 2000; and that notices that are passed should withstand judicial scrutiny. A summary of Mr. Krishnan’s remarks during the closed-door workshop was put out in an official release. 

Mr. Krishnan’s remarks came as X, formerly Twitter, appeals a Karnataka High Court order upholding the government’s Sahyog portal. The portal automates the process of the takedown notices Mr. Krishnan was referring to, allowing State police and some Union government departments to send takedown notices to social media platforms under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. That section of the law provides “safe harbour” from legal liability to websites from content posted by users. X argued that the portal would permit unrestrained censorship, while the Union government has argued that notices under that Section would not lead to automatic criminal liability for firms like X. 

Mr. Krishnan drew a distinction between that Section and Section 69A: the Secretary “explained that Section 69A empowers the Government, in its executive capacity, to block online content in cases where it threatens national security, public order or friendly relations with foreign States,” the summary said. “Section 79, on the other hand, places intermediaries on notice regarding their obligations and potential liability in case of non-compliance, while final adjudication rests with the judiciary.”

“[N]otices under Section 79(3)(b) containing directions/orders similar to Section 69A must be carefully avoided as the scope of both the provisions are entirely different … He added that the appropriate Government or its agency, as custodians of power, must exercise the powers cautiously.”

“In other words, the powers must be exercised in a prudent manner so that they withstand the judicial scrutiny and also balance the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India,” he was paraphrased as saying. 

X said in a statement earlier this month that the Sahyog portal that it feared the Sahyog portal would “allow millions of police officers to issue arbitrary takedown orders through [this] secretive online portal.” (States and Union Territories have not authorised anywhere near that number of officials to send takedown notices: a recent list showed that only 33 officials were authorised.)

The Karnataka High Court had upheld the regime, and said that the Supreme Court’s ruling that “actual knowledge” of illegal content can only come from a court order, in 2016’s Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, was a “bygone” requirement from an earlier part of the development of social media in India, and that the aforesaid judgement now needed a fresh interpretive lens.