TeaHe has dismissed the petition of X Corp by the Karnataka High Court Union Government’s cooperation portalWhile distributing the verdict, Justice M. Nagprasanna said that social media cannot be “left in a state of chaotic freedom” and India’s digital location cannot be considered only a playground where information can be broadcast in disregard of methods. ”
How does Sahia portal operate?
Launched by the Union Home Ministry (MHA) in October 2024, the SAHYOG portal is operated by the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Center (i4C) as a centralized platform to issue a takedown order to the Internet mediators, including telecom operators, internet service providers, social media platforms and web-hosting services. Its purpose is to implement Section 79 of the IT Act, which provides the middlemen “safe harbor” protection-they are lilated for user-generated materials. For example, a platform cannot usually be sued for a defamation post published by a user. Legal liability rests only with the person who has created the material.
However, this security is conditional. Under Section 79 (3) (B), middlemen lost their immunity, if obtaining “real knowledge” from a government agency about illegal information, they fail to “remove or disable access”. The portal was introduced to automatically issue and streamlines to issue such notice. Its existence was first revealed Shabana vs Sarkar. NCT of Delhi and ORS (2024), a missing 19-year-old person in a Delhi High Court case. During the proceedings, the court emphasized the need for a mechanism to facilitate real-time coordination between middlemen and law enforcement in time-sensitive cases.
Court record reviewed by Hindu show About one third of the 66 takedown notices sent by the I4C to the XIC posts last year about Union Ministers and Central Government agencies. The posts were mentioned for the flag to remove the posts to remove the posts to remove Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Home Minister Amit Shah and his son J Shah, Minister of State for Home Affairs, Sanjay Kumar, and Finance Minister Nirmala Sitaraman.
Why X went to court?
In March, Elon Musk -owned X filed a petition in the Karnataka High Court, which challenges the validity of the Sahyog portal, which was described as a “censorship portal”. The company argued that the government was calling for Section 79 (3) (B) of the IT Act to ignore the strict and more transparent process under Section 69A.
According to X, two provisions serve different objectives. Section 79 only gives the mediators a liability safe port protection for user-generated materials, while Section 69A gives the center the right to block online materials, but only on the grounds that reflect proper restrictions on free speech under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution such as to continue the sovereignty and integrity of the government. Give the middlemen a chance to listen, and issue a logical written order, ensuring the possibility of judicial review.
Also read: Blocking Hindutva Watch and prevalence of social media censorship in India
To increase its case, X trusted the historic decision of the Supreme Court Shreya Singhal vs Union of India The court had clarified that the takedown directions under Section 79 (3) (B) may only follow a court order or a formal government notification, and should remain on a constitutional basis in Article 19 (2) as per reflected in Section 69A. By allowing thousands of officers to issue notices through Sahia to both the union and state governments, X argued, the Center formed a “parallel” and “illegal” censorship rule that lacked these security measures.
In support of X’s challenge, Digipub, an association of 92 digital news outlets, also intervened in the proceedings, stating that the Route -taken Tekdown orders through cohils had an inconsistent impact on their members, whose reporting was often targeted.
What was the protect of the government?
The central government defended cooperation as an essential regulatory system. It argued that the specific nature of the Internet, with its algorithm-managed virality, required strict oversight compared to traditional media. Safe Harbor, it said, a statutory privilege, not an underlying right, and platforms that failed to work on illegal material notice, would seize this security. Sahyog made this obligation only by creating a streamlined channel for such notices.
The government emphasized that section 79 and 69A operated independently, dismissing the allegation that it had formed a parallel inhibitory rule. Non-transportation with a Sahi notice, it was not argued, there was no amount for direct censorship, but only for the loss of legal immunity. The portal, it emphasized, was an administrative equipment to facilitate rapid action against illegal online materials.
Government also questioned X Corp locus standiStating that as a foreign corporation, it cannot implement fundamental rights under Article 19, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression for Indian citizens, especially for Indian citizens. Presented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the Central Government said that X was demanding “special treatment” in India, complying with comparable regulatory regulations elsewhere in India. It further stated that x was the only major mediator to integrate with SAHYOG.
What has the High Court decided?
Rejecting the challenge of X as “devoid of merit”, Justice Nagprasanna described Sahiog as both “the means of public good” and “the beacon of cooperation between the citizen and the intermediary”. He emphasized that the oversite was particularly important in cases affecting the dignity of women.
The court also upheld the Center’s objection to the legal status of X, deciding that Article 19 of the Constitution is “only a charter of honored rights on citizens.” Since X is not a citizen of India, he ruled that “the protective embrace of Article 19 cannot be invited” by the company. Taking a strict precaution to foreign social media corporations, the decision warned that India could not be considered as a “playground”, where the information is “broadcast” in the disregard of the law “and later displaced through the” a posture of the contingent “. Entry into the Indian market, the court underlined, a “responsibility and a privilege associated with accountability,” and no platform can claim exemption from the country’s legal structure.
In a pointed criticism of X’s conduct, Justice Nagprasana observed that the forum complied with the Techdown rule in the United States, “Yet the same platform refuses to follow the Techdown directions in this nation”. Take the US, this Down Act, 2025, which criminals the publication of AI-borne deepfac and non-consciousness intimate imagination, said that X has easily followed US laws that impose criminal obligations for non-transportation, but oppose equivalent obligations in India.
The court also dismissed the major dispute of X that the cooperation portal lacked statutory support and Section 79 (3) (B) of the IT Act did not authorize the material.
Justice Nagprasana argued that in the decision of the Supreme Court Shreya Singhal The now-domestic information technology regulations of 2011 were anchored and could not be “transported” in the current context.
2021 IT Rules, he held, “Fresh and different in his design under his conception” and therefore “seeks his own explanatory frame, which is uneven from examples addressing an erstwhile rule.”
What are the implications?
Protec Waghre, head of programs at Tech Global Institute, told Hindu The ruling risks of the High Court enable an uncontrolled expansion of state control over online materials. He said, “The problem lies in the absence of clear, narrow and objective criteria to constitute illegal materials. In practice, it is likely to be in comprehensive sensorship of information as a result of comprehensive censorship that promotes political accountability, as well as oppression of ideas in the spectrum,” he said.
Mr. Waghre warned that the content is not a permanent solution, whether it is introduced by platforms or directed by law enforcement, as the two actors often work in select and self-service methods. “Law enforcement already has mechanisms to prosecute the harmful speech under criminal code, but these are implemented inconsistent and thematic. Without deep social and political reforms that decompose harmful expression and curb selective enforcement, there will be no trade fingering between the abuse of power and tolerating free expression.”
In a statement released on 29 September, X said it was “Deeply worried” with a single judge’s decision And will file an appeal. However, it did not clarify whether the challenge would be placed before a large bench of the Karnataka High Court or taken directly to the Supreme Court.
X further argued that the ruling was incompatible with one Bombay High Court verdict Was given in September last year, which hit the Press Information Bureau Fact-Czech unit of the Union Government on the grounds that he had violated the principles of natural justice by allowing unilateral determination by the executive.
