The story so far:
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed X Corp’s petition against the Union government’s Sahyog portal, which enables content takedown under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000. The ruling marks a setback for X’s (previously Twitter) months-long litigation and endorses the government’s content regulation framework, which has already been adopted by 38 intermediaries, including Microsoft, Amazon, Google and Telegram. Delivering the verdict, Justice M. Nagaprasanna said that social media “cannot be left in a state of anarchic freedom” and that India’s digital space could not be treated as a “mere playground where information can be disseminated in defiance of statutes.”
How does the Sahyog portal operate?
Launched by the Union Ministry of Home 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 internet intermediaries, including telecom operators, internet service providers, social media platforms, and web-hosting services. Its purpose is to enforce Section 79 of the IT Act, which grants intermediaries “safe harbour” protection — shielding them from liability for user-generated content. For instance, a platform cannot ordinarily be sued for a defamatory post published by a user. The legal liability rests solely with the individual who created the content.
However, this protection is conditional. Under Section 79(3)(b), intermediaries lose their immunity if, after receiving “actual knowledge” from a government agency about unlawful information, they fail to “expeditiously remove or disable access” to it. The portal was introduced 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 High Court case concerning a missing 19-year-old. During the proceedings, the court stressed the need for a mechanism to facilitate real-time coordination between intermediaries and law enforcement in time-sensitive cases.
Court records reviewed by The Hindu show that nearly a third of the 66 takedown notices sent to X by I4C over the past year targeted posts about Union Ministers and Central government agencies. Posts referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah and his son Jay Shah, Minister of State for Home Affairs Bandi Sanjay Kumar, and Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman were among those flagged for removal.
Why did X go to court?
In March, Elon Musk-owned X filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court challenging the legality of the Sahyog portal, which it described as a “censorship portal.” The company argued that the government was invoking Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act to sidestep the stricter and more transparent procedure under Section 69A.
According to X, the two provisions serve distinct purposes. Section 79 merely grants intermediaries safe harbour protection from liability for user-generated content, while Section 69A empowers the Centre to block online material, but only on grounds that mirror the reasonable restrictions on free speech under Article 19(2) of the Constitution such as for upholding sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, preserving public order etc. Notably, Section 69A also mandates that the government constitute a committee, give intermediaries a chance to be heard, and issue a reasoned written order, thereby ensuring the possibility of judicial review.
To bolster its case, X relied on the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Shreya Singhal versus Union of India (2015), which struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for vagueness and upheld Section 69A as the sole constitutionally valid framework for restricting online content, subject to procedural safeguards. The court had clarified that takedown directions under Section 79(3)(b) could only follow a court order or a formal government notification, and must remain tethered to the constitutional grounds in Article 19(2), as reflected in Section 69A. By permitting thousands of officials across both Union and State governments to issue notices through Sahyog, X argued, the Centre had created a “parallel” and “unlawful” censorship regime that lacked these safeguards.
In support of X’s challenge, DigiPub, an association of 92 digital news outlets, also intervened in the proceedings, contending that takedown orders routed through Sahyog had a disproportionate impact on its members, whose reporting was frequently targeted.
What was the government’s defence?
The Union government defended Sahyog as a necessary regulatory mechanism. It argued that the distinctive nature of the Internet, with its algorithm-driven virality, required stricter oversight than traditional media. Safe harbour, it said, was a statutory privilege, not an inherent right, and platforms that failed to act on unlawful content notices would forfeit this protection. Sahyog merely operationalised this obligation by creating a streamlined channel for such notices.
Rejecting the allegation that it had created a parallel blocking regime, the government emphasised that Sections 79 and 69A operated independently. Non-compliance with a Sahyog notice, it argued, did not amount to direct censorship but only to the loss of legal immunity. The portal, it insisted, was simply an administrative tool to facilitate swift action against illegal online content.
The government also questioned X Corp’s locus standi, pointing out that as a foreign corporation, it could not invoke fundamental rights under Article 19, which guarantees the freedom of speech and expression exclusively to Indian citizens. Represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the Union government contended that X was seeking “special treatment” in India while complying with comparable regulatory regimes elsewhere. It further pointed out that X was the only major intermediary yet to integrate with Sahyog.
What has the High Court ruled?
Dismissing X’s challenge as “devoid of merit,” Justice Nagaprasanna described Sahyog as both an “instrument of public good” and a “beacon of cooperation between citizen and intermediary.” He emphasised that oversight was especially vital in cases affecting the dignity of women.
The court also upheld the Centre’s objection to X’s legal standing, ruling that Article 19 of the Constitution is a “charter of rights conferred upon citizens only.” Since X is not a citizen of India, it ruled that “the protective embrace of Article 19 cannot be invoked” by the company. Issuing a stern caution to foreign social media corporations, the judgment warned that India could not be treated as a “playground” where information is disseminated “in defiance of the law” and later disowned through “a posture of detachment.” Entry into the Indian marketplace, the court underscored, is a “privilege tied to responsibility and accountability,” and no platform can claim exemption from the country’s legal framework.
In a pointed critique of X’s conduct, Justice Nagaprasanna observed that the platform complied with takedown regimes in the United States, “yet the same platform refuses to comply with takedown directions in 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 noted that X readily adhered to U.S. laws that impose criminal liability for non-compliance, but resisted equivalent obligations in India.
The court also rejected X’s principal contention that the Sahyog portal lacked statutory backing and that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act did not authorise content takedown.
Justice Nagaprasanna reasoned that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shreya Singhal was anchored in the now-defunct Information Technology Rules of 2011 and could not be “transposed” to the present context.
The 2021 IT Rules, he held, are “fresh in their conception and distinct in their design” and therefore “demand their own interpretative frame, unsaddled by precedents that addressed a bygone regime.”
What are the implications?
Prateek Waghre, Head of Programs at Tech Global Institute, told The Hindu that the High Court’s ruling risks enabling an unchecked expansion of state control over online content. “The problem lies in the absence of clear, narrow, and objective criteria for what constitutes unlawful content. In practice, this is likely to result in broader censorship of information that fosters political accountability, as well as the suppression of views across the spectrum,” he said.
Mr. Waghre cautioned that content takedowns, whether initiated by platforms or directed by law enforcement, are not a sustainable solution, since both actors often operate selectively and in self-serving ways. “Law enforcement already has mechanisms to prosecute harmful speech under criminal codes, but these are enforced inconsistently and subjectively. Without deeper social and political reforms that disincentivise harmful expression and curb selective enforcement, the trade-off between curbing abuse of power and safeguarding free expression will endure. There are no easy fixes here”.
In a statement issued on September 29, X said it was “deeply concerned” by the single-judge verdict and would file an appeal. However, it did not clarify whether the challenge would be placed before a larger Bench of the Karnataka High Court or taken directly to the Supreme Court.
X further argued that the ruling was inconsistent with a Bombay High Court judgment delivered last year in September, which struck down the Union government’s Press Information Bureau fact-checking unit on the ground that it violated principles of natural justice by permitting unilateral determinations by the executive.
