X Corp told the Karnataka High Court that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act cannot be used to bypass safeguards under Section 69A. The court is examining if the Sahyog portal violates constitutional rights of intermediaries.
Bengaluru: Today, on July 8, the Karnataka High Court has begun hearing a crucial case involving tech giant X Corp and the Government of India regarding the legality of the “Sahyog” portal—a government platform used to issue content-blocking orders to online intermediaries.
The case is being heard by Justice M. Nagaprasanna.
Senior Advocate K.G. Raghavan, appearing for X Corp, told the court that this matter is purely a question of how the law should be interpreted, not about factual events.
According to him, the key legal issue is whether Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act can be treated as a separate and independent source of power, and whether it can be read without linking it to Section 69A.
ALSO READ: Indian Govt’s ‘Sahyog’ Portal: Karnataka HC to Hear X Corp’s Plea on July 8
He emphasized that these sections must be analyzed carefully, keeping in mind Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and expression.
He argued,
“Our position is that Section 79(3)(b) isn’t a source of power. Even if it is, it must meet the safeguards under Section 69A. We’re not saying we’re above the law—we operate locally and comply with Indian laws. The issue is whether the absence of safeguards in Section 79, unlike 69A, violates Article 14.”
The counsel pointed out that intermediaries like X Corp act only as platforms where users post content. He explained,
“You’re suggesting that you can’t be held liable for content that appears on your platform.”
To this, the lawyer replied,
“Exactly. If A posts something defamatory about B, the issue is between them. I’m merely an intermediary and immune from legal action arising from that post.”
He also made a comparison between Sections 69A and 79 of the IT Act, arguing that there are major differences.
According to him,
“While 69A uses the word block but 79 does not. 69A is just a direction but 79 is a notice. 69A has a punishment while 79 does not.”
He added,
“You lose your protection as an intermediary if you do not obey the Government. Hence it just has a sanction behind it.”
The court was then taken through the blocking rules under the IT Act and the Intermediary Guidelines (Ethics Code). The lawyer for X Corp asserted firmly,
“The premise that 79(3)(b) is a repository of power is wrong.”
He warned against a flawed interpretation of the law, stating,
“Reading it like ‘if you don’t comply with notice under 79(3)(b) you will lose your exemption under 79(1)’ is not a harmonious reading of 69A and 79.”
In response, Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that
“technology per se is not bad but unregulated technology can be catastrophic.”
This comment highlighted the delicate balance between regulation and innovation in today’s digital age.
The counsel for X Corp acknowledged the importance of some degree of regulation, saying,
“The unique role of intermediaries in the tech space is acknowledged. However, some restrictions are necessary, as outlined in Sections 79(2) and (3). But can these limits be left to the arbitrary discretion of an individual? We’ve moved beyond such unchecked regulation long ago.”
To support his arguments, the lawyer referred to the landmark Shreya Singhal v. Union of India case, which clarified the legal limits on online speech and the responsibility of intermediaries under the IT Act.
The hearing is significant as it could shape the future framework for internet freedom and government control in India.
The court will have to decide whether content-blocking powers must strictly follow the safeguards under Section 69A or whether Section 79(3)(b) can be independently used to compel intermediaries to take down content—without a transparent process or right to appeal.
He explained how the safeguards under Section 69A of the IT Act are being bypassed using Section 79(3)(b), which lacks similar procedural protections.
He said,
“Govt can choose to say that with same info we will go by 69A and for the same choose to go by 79. This would amount to treating equals as unequals. It is arbitrary and discriminatory.”
He argued that such selective application of the law results in uneven enforcement.
“This leads to arbitrary and inconsistent regulation of content. Unlike Section 69A, which mandates a committee-based decision-making process, Section 79 enables a single officer to issue takedown orders without institutional safeguards, making it violative of Article 14.”
Raghavan also addressed the applicability of constitutional rights to foreign companies.
“A foreign company like @X may not be entitled to protection under Article 19, but it can still claim protection under Article 14. Moreover, since Articles 14, 19, and 21 form the ‘golden triangle’ of fundamental rights, a violation of Article 19 would inherently also breach Article 14.”
He pointed out how the absence of a centralized approach leads to chaos.
“Each officer has their own understanding of law and what is good and bad. There is no centralised system.”
He emphasized that online platforms should not be treated differently from traditional mediums.
“The medium shouldn’t make a difference whether the content is in a book or online.”
At this point, Justice M. Nagaprasanna remarked,
“But the effect isn’t the same. Online content is far more accessible and lasting—the internet doesn’t forget.”
Raghavan responded by highlighting the risks of leaving such wide discretion to individual officers.
“There are so many language barriers between states. Words which can be offensive in one state can be affectionate in another and in such case powers have been given to officers to decide. This is too much of power given to an executive officer.”
He acknowledged that
“Section 69A permits takedown orders to prevent incitement of cognizable offences, which can cover issues like decency and morality.”
However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pointed out that
“matters of ‘decency or morality’ fall under Rule 3(d) of the 2021 Rules, not Section 69A.”
Raghavan strongly defended citizens’ rights in the digital age, saying,
“The advent of Information Technology should not take away the right of people.”
He asserted,
“There must be a filtering mechanism that aligns with Section 69A.”
Justice Nagaprasanna then asked,
“Are you saying Rule 3(1)(d) should be struck down?”
To this, Raghavan replied,
“Yes.”
The Bench has now scheduled the continuation of arguments by X Corp’s counsel for July 11, 2025. The outcome of this case could reshape how intermediary liability and government censorship are handled under India’s IT laws.
Case title:
X CORP V UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS WP 7405/2025
Read Live Coverage:
Click Here to Read Our Reports on X Corp
