“Social media cannot be left in anarchic freedom”: X Corp to Appeal Karnataka High Court Ruling on Sahyog Portal

X Corp said it will appeal the Karnataka High Court verdict upholding the government’s Sahyog portal, calling it a threat to free expression. The company argued the system bypasses due process and violates constitutional rights.

X Corp Slams ‘Sahyog Portal’ in Karnataka High Court: “If One Officer Can Decide What’s Legal, It’s a Disaster”

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.

SG Tushar Mehta To High Court: “Fake ‘Supreme Court of Karnataka’ Account Created on X”

Today, On 18th July, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Karnataka High Court that a fake ‘Supreme Court of Karnataka’ account was created on X, during a hearing on X Corp’s petition challenging the Centre’s new “Sahyog” portal.

X Corp Case| “Chilling Effect Is Not a One and All Solution”: Centre To Karnataka HC

Today, On 18th July, In the X Corp case, the Centre told the Karnataka High Court that “chilling effect is not a one and all solution” under Article 19(1)(a), defending evolving restrictions on free speech in the digital age.

“You Are the Product”: X Corp Challenges Centre’s Sahyog Portal Over Secretive Content Bans

X Corp tells Karnataka HC that the Sahyog portal enables secret censorship without due process. SG Mehta defends it as vital for India’s massive digital safety.

Indian Govt’s ‘Sahyog’ Portal: Karnataka HC to Hear X Corp’s Plea on July 8

Karnataka High Court will hear X Corp’s plea on July 8 against the Indian government’s ‘Sahyog’ portal, used for issuing content takedown orders. The court allowed X Corp to amend its petition and add respondents.

Case Analysis: Asian News International (ANI) vs Wikimedia

The Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of Wikipedia, dismissing defamation claims by ANI and emphasizing the importance of freedom of expression and judicial transparency. The decision supports digital free speech, allowing public scrutiny of ongoing cases while clarifying judicial limits on media content regulation, fostering a robust democratic environment.