X CORP CHALLENGES KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ORDER AFFIRMING CENTRE’S SAHYOG PORTAL BLOCKING POWERS:

X Corp has filed an appeal before the Karnataka High Court challenging the single-judge ruling that upheld the Union Government’s authority to issue content-blocking directions through the Sahyog portal, a system used to automate notices to intermediaries for the removal of unlawful online content. The appeal, submitted on November 14, seeks to overturn the judgment delivered on September 24, which had dismissed X Corp’s plea questioning the scope and application of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

In its initial petition, X Corp had argued that officers of the Central Government lack independent statutory authority to issue blocking orders under Section 79(3)(b). According to the company, such directions can be lawfully issued only under the structured and detailed procedural framework established in Section 69A of the IT Act, read with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. These provisions, it contended, provide the exclusive mechanism for imposing content-blocking mandates. The single judge, however, rejected this interpretation, holding that the Government’s use of the Sahyog portal was both lawful and compatible with the overall scheme of the IT Act and the 2021 Rules.

While upholding the validity of the Sahyog portal, the Court underscored the necessity of regulatory oversight in the digital sphere. It likened social media to a contemporary public arena that cannot be allowed to function without discipline or accountability. The judgment stressed that regulating the flow of information is neither novel nor improper, pointing out that countries such as the United States also maintain systems to regulate online content. The Court observed that India’s decision to introduce safeguards in the digital domain is consistent with constitutional principles and cannot be dismissed as unconstitutional simply because the measures impose restrictions.

The single judge further emphasized that speech on digital platforms must remain subject to reasonable limits. In the Court’s view, entirely unchecked expression under the banner of liberty could lead to disorder, while regulated speech strikes a balance between individual freedom and public order—two elements the Court described as essential to a functioning democracy. It added that no social media company could claim exemption from Indian law or treat the national information ecosystem as a space in which content may be disseminated freely and later disowned without consequence. Regulation, the Court noted, becomes even more crucial in cases involving offences against women, where the right to dignity lies at the core of constitutional protections.

The judgment also held that X Corp, being a foreign company, cannot rely on Article 19 of the Constitution, as the guarantee of free speech and expression is confined to Indian citizens. It dismissed the company’s reliance on Article 19(1)(a), emphasizing that the fundamental right does not extend to non-citizens. Describing the Sahyog portal as a tool meant to promote public welfare, the Court characterized it as a cooperative mechanism developed under Section 79(3)(b) and the 2021 Rules to address the rising incidence of cybercrime. The Court attributed X Corp’s challenge to a misunderstanding of the portal’s purpose.

Noting what it considered inconsistency in X Corp’s regulatory stance, the Court remarked that the platform complies with takedown requirements in the United States, where non-compliance may result in criminal liability, yet adopts a different posture in India despite being subject to its jurisdiction. After the September ruling, X Corp had publicly stated that it disagreed with the decision and intended to pursue appellate remedies, also asserting that the Karnataka High Court’s conclusions diverged from a Bombay High Court ruling that invalidated the Centre’s Fact Check Unit.

With the appeal now filed, a division bench of the Karnataka High Court will re-examine significant questions concerning intermediary liability, the legality of the Sahyog portal, the interplay between Sections 69A and 79 of the IT Act, and the constitutional standing of foreign entities operating within India’s digital regulatory framework.