X Corp told the Karnataka High Court that the Centre’s Sahyog portal allows arbitrary censorship without legal safeguards. The court will hear the matter next on July 17.
Bengaluru: Today, on July 11, the Karnataka High Court is hearing an important case involving X Corp (formerly Twitter) and the Central Government regarding the use of the ‘Sahyog’ portal to issue content blocking orders.
The petition, filed under WP 7405/2025, is being heard by Justice M. Nagaprasanna. X Corp has challenged how the government is using the Sahyog portal to block online content, claiming it goes beyond the legal boundaries set by law.
Senior Advocate K.G. Raghavan, representing X Corp, referred to the landmark Shreya Singhal judgment of the Supreme Court where the court had upheld Section 69A of the IT Act only because it had “narrow scope and safeguards” that are “missing in Section 79.”
He clarified that while it is important to regulate platforms, such regulation must strictly follow legal procedures laid out by Parliament under Section 69A.
He further said that Section 79 acts more like a way to carry out content takedown directions, but the kind of authority it gives is very different from Section 69A.
According to Raghavan,
“It grants broad powers through delegated legislation, allowing thousands of officers to issue takedown orders even for something as minor as criticism about the Metro not running on time just to shield their departments.”
He warned that if such a process continues,
“It would effectively shut down all criticism of any ministry’s performance.”
Raghavan argued that content is being removed
“based solely on a nodal officer’s personal view of what’s unlawful,” which he called “arbitrary.”
In comparison, Section 69A involves a more careful and
“collective decision-making process.”
Defending X Corp’s role, he clarified,
“This isn’t just about X we’re a responsible platform with clear terms of service and user agreements that prevent misuse.”
During the hearing, Justice Nagaprasanna referred to a case involving Proton Mail, where the refusal to take down content was described as “obnoxious.”
Continuing his arguments, Raghavan warned that if takedown actions under Section 79 are allowed like this,
“It’ll be endless and will ultimately undermine the democratic spirit of the nation.”
With that, he concluded his arguments.
Later, the counsel for Digipub, who appeared as an intervenor in the matter, highlighted how news organizations use platforms like X (Twitter) to share and receive information.
He pointed out,
“Bar & Bench shares news via its Twitter page and also receives content through the same platform.”
He began addressing the Centre’s counter affidavit and argued,
“We fall under multiple categories, and Shreya Singhal has already recognized that content originators have the locus to challenge takedown actions.”
He said that content creators, like digital media platforms, have legal rights, and those rights must be protected. According to him,
“My role as content originator is recognized in the rules. Section 79A is an exemption and must be read strictly it can’t be used to expand powers or bypass safeguards.”
He explained that while the government may differentiate between online and offline media in certain situations,
“It can’t justify treating online media as entirely separate for regulation.”
Counsel Sondhi also appeared and explained how content is taken down under Section 69A, showing the court that the process is more structured than what is being done under Section 79.
He then discussed the 2021 IT Rules, which are currently under challenge in different courts. He added,
“I am reading one or two paragraphs of Justice Gautam Patel. The judgement in Kunal Kamra’s case.”
Sondhi further argued that although the concept of safe harbour is meant to protect free speech, the present system enables indirect censorship.
He warned,
“If an officer dislikes an article, they can order its removal—creating a chilling effect.”
He said the lack of a proper hearing or process goes against constitutional principles.
“Without natural justice, it risks violating the Constitution. The entire scheme is driven by executive power, giving unchecked authority.”
He criticized the IT Rules by saying,
“The rules lack clarity and were not meant to create such a broad framework.”
He concluded by stating that media organizations play an important role in a democracy and that they should not be regulated based on vague standards like decency or morality.
ALSO READ: Indian Govt’s ‘Sahyog’ Portal: Karnataka HC to Hear X Corp’s Plea on July 8
“We are media houses if decency or morality are there I am not there to argue that. But extreme examples do not make the law.”
In Karnataka HC matter of X vs Union- SGI Tushar Mehta to begin submission on the next date of hearing July 17. Hearing ends.
Read Live Coverage:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on X Corp
