X Corp slammed the Centre’s ‘Sahyog Portal’ in the Karnataka High Court, warning that allowing one officer to decide what’s legal could lead to chaos. “It’s a disaster,” argued Sr. Advocate Raghavan, citing Shreya Singhal.
The Karnataka High Court heard X Corp’s (formerly Twitter) writ petition challenging the Central Government’s use of the ‘Sahyog’ portal to send content blocking directions.
Senior Advocate Raghavan, appearing for X Corp, started presenting his arguments before the Bench.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna presided over the hearing.
He criticised the Centre’s claim that compliance with the Sahyog portal is optional and said,
“If it is advisory don’t take it. You will just lose protection under 79. That argument has inherent mistake. At one point you say that 79A deals with such extraordinary situation and on the other hand you say that it is on you to follow it or not.”
He pointed out that most of the Solicitor General’s arguments were based on American legal cases, but that was not relevant in India.
He told the Court,
“The learned solicitor’s argument were based largely on US cases. Whatever US Supreme Court say, as far as I am concerned, Indian Supreme Court is right.”
At that moment, the judge asked him whether he was referring to the Shreya Singhal case.
In response, Raghavan strongly emphasised that X Corp respects Indian law and wants to operate according to the law of the land.
He said,
“We are here to do business. I am making it categorical that we will do business according to the law of the country. The question is that what is the law of the country.”
The Court acknowledged this concern and said,
“That is the question which has to be decided. There are different interpretations.”
Raghavan then addressed the issue of safe harbour protection given to intermediaries under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act.
He said,
“You would not have given me safe harbour then it would have been different. But having given me a right, can you take it away in a way not known to law?”
He further explained that if the Government’s interpretation of Section 79 is accepted, then thousands of officers across India would be empowered to make subjective decisions on what content must be taken down.
He said,
“Look at Section 79. If we accept the State’s interpretation, thousands of officers across the country would be tasked with making such determinations. That would be disastrous because it would allow an officer to act as accuser, judge and also declare that I lose my safe harbour protection.”
Raghavan argued that the protection under Section 79A is a legal right and it cannot be removed casually.
He told the Court,
“I will say that the right under 79A is a statutory right. Can that be taken away because an officer says you will lose it because I say so?”
He explained the difference between something being illegal and something being unconstitutional, saying,
“There’s a clear distinction between something being illegal and something being unconstitutional. Under this approach, officers would effectively act as judges, deciding on their own that a person has acted unlawfully.”
He made a strong remark about past misuse of legal provisions like Section 66A of the IT Act, which was struck down by the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal judgment.
He said,
“Governments may come and go but 66A must go on forever. Bad facts make bad law. The question is that if this type of an action is in consonance with what was given by SC in Shreya Singhal.”
He also referred to a recent Bombay High Court judgment in the Kunal Kamra case, where the Court had struck down a Fact Check Unit as inadequate.
Drawing a parallel, he said,
“In the Bombay HC (Kunal Kamra case) a fact check unit was struck down as inadequate. But under Rule 3(1)(d) now anyone can issue a takedown notice with no real checks. If a post shows someone riding on a crowded train roof, the solution isn’t to ban the photo but to add more coaches. Democracy should favor the latter, not censorship.”
He added that the implementation of such rules must follow a legal process and not be left to the whims of individual officers.
He said,
“There is an orderly way to implement law. This is absurd situation that one officer sitting in some corner of the country will decide what is legal and illegal.”
He criticised the contradictory argument made by the Government, saying,
“You are saying that under 3(1)(d) they are issuing a direction for the sovereignty and integrity of the country but it’s up to you if you should follow it or not. This argument should be rejected on the face of it.”
Finally, he argued that even if Section 79’s safe harbour protection is weakened, the Government still has powers under Section 69.
But that does not mean basic rights can be taken away without solid reasons.
He concluded by saying,
“I ask myself is there a vacuum. If the power of 79 is not there, then 69 is there. Do not take away fundamental rights on the grounds [that] are so flimsy.”
The hearing will continue at 4:30 PM.
The matter was adjourned to Tuesday after the court resumed at 4:30 PM.
Case Title: X CORP V UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, WP 7405/2025
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES