The Karnataka High Court sought the Union government’s response to X Corp’s plea challenging the Centre’s Sahyog portal, alleging authorities nationwide use it to issue online content takedown orders to intermediaries outside the statutory blocking procedures.
KARNATAKA: The Karnataka High Court requested the Union government’s response to an appeal from X Corp (formerly Twitter) challenging the Central government’s Sahyog portal a platform used for issuing content takedown orders to online intermediaries such as X.
X Corp informed the Court that the Sahyog portal is being utilized by authorities across the nation to issue online content takedown directives that fall outside the established statutory blocking procedures.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakru and Justice CM Poonacha issued a notice to the government regarding X Corp’s appeal against a single-judge ruling that upheld the portal’s validity.
The Court scheduled further hearings for June 11.
X Corp initially approached the High Court’s single-judge, contesting the Sahyog portal on the grounds that it undermines due process requirements under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) and infringes upon the safeguards established in the Shreya Singhal case when it comes to regulating online content.
The petition followed several takedown orders issued by the Union Ministry of Railways concerning posts related to a recent stampede at New Delhi Railway Station. X Corp sought a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act under which the portal was created does not authorize content blocking.
On September 24 of last year, Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition. He opined that X Corp could not claim a violation of free speech under Article 19 of the Constitution, as this right is conferred only to Indian citizens.
In its appeal before the Division Bench, X Corp noted that between January and June 2025, it received 29,118 requests from the Indian government for post removals and complied with 26,641 of those, representing a compliance rate of 91.49%.
According to X Corp, the government’s application of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000, and Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, to issue takedown notices has established an unlawful parallel censorship regime that circumvents the statutory framework provided under Section 69A of the IT Act.
The petition asserts that Section 69A and the 2009 Blocking Rules constitute the only legal means for blocking online content in India. This framework was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) and includes procedural safeguards that allow for blocking only on the limited grounds specified in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
X Corp argues that Section 79 serves merely as a safe-harbour provision, shielding intermediaries from liability, and does not endow the government with independent power to mandate content blocking. Nevertheless, authorities are said to have misused Section 79(3)(b) in conjunction with Rule 3(1)(d), which requires intermediaries to remove unlawful content.
The appeal highlights a memorandum dated October 31, 2023, from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) that authorized numerous executive officials and police officers nationwide to issue blocking directives through this mechanism, circumventing the Section 69A protocol.
It also questions the establishment of the Sahyog portal, which is allegedly used to issue such orders without transparency.
The single-judge ruling incorrectly stated that the Shreya Singhal precedent was no longer relevant, even though the fundamental statutory provisions remain unchanged, the appeal asserts.
X Corp was represented by Senior Advocate KG Raghavan, along with a team from Poovayya & Co, led by advocate Manu Prabhakar Kulkarni.
Case Title: X Corp v. Union of India
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE