The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed by X Corp (formerly Twitter) challenging the legality of the Central government’s ‘Sahyog’ portal - an online platform used to issue content takedown orders to intermediaries [X Corp v. Union of India].
Justice M Nagaprasanna held,
"Article 19 is luminous in its promise but remains a charter of rights conferred upon citizens only. A petitioner who is not a citizen cannot claim sanctuary under it."
On X Corp's conduct, the judge ruled
"The petitioner’s platform is subject to a regulatory regime in the United States, its birthplace. Under the ‘take down’ law of that jurisdiction, it chooses to follow orders criminalising violations. Yet the same platform refuses to comply with take-down directions in this nation. This is sans countenance.”
The Court emphasised that every platform operating in India must accept that liberty is yoked with responsibility:
“Every platform that seeks to operate within the jurisdiction of our nation must accept that liberty is yoked with responsibility, and the privilege of access carries with it the solemn duty of accountability.”
The Court went on to hold,
“Social media as a modern amphitheatre of ideas cannot be left in a state of anarchic freedom,” the judgment said, adding that regulation of content was essential to safeguard dignity and prevent offences against women.
The Court framed 10 issues to come to its conclusion in the case
Whether the march of human civilisation, from antiquity to the present digital age, has ever witnessed information and communication in an unregulated state, or whether regulation has been its constant companion across epochs.
Whether the regimes of regulation that prevailed in earlier times continue to subsist both within the local context of our polity and in the global order of nations.
Whether the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India is an unbridled entitlement or is hedged by the canopy of reasonable restrictions embodied in Article 19(2).
Whether the jurisprudential edifice of the United States may be transplanted without reservation or adaptation into the soil of Indian constitutional thought, and whether American judicial philosophy has undergone a discernible shift post Reno v. ACLU, with any effect upon comparative jurisprudence.
What were the rules that fell for consideration in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, and whether the rules now occupying the field are materially distinct, thereby demanding a fresh interpretative lens.
Whether the present challenge to the rules is vitiated by alleged vagueness or whether the rules withstand the test of clarity and definiteness in law.
Whether the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution are essentially citizen-centric or extend to all persons.
Whether the Sahyog portal envisaged under the Information Technology Act is ultra vires the parent enactment or whether it stands as a legitimate instrument in aid of statutory purpose.
In the contemporary digital milieu, where algorithms shape the flow of information, whether autonomy of such processes eclipses human agency—myth or reality.
Whether the menace of social media requires to be curbed and regulated.
Justice Nagaprasanna ruled "From Orient to Occident, the march of civilisation bears witness to the inescapable truth that information and communication, whether in spread or speed, have never been left unchecked. They have always been the subject matter of regulation. From messengers to the postal age, and now to WhatsApp, Instagram and Snapchat, all have been governed by regulatory regimes both globally and locally."
On Sahyog portal, the Court held “Sahyog portal, far from being a constitutional anathema, is an instrument of public good conceived under the authority of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and Rule 3(d) of the 2021 Rules. To assail its validity is to misunderstand its purpose."
The Court's judgment in the matter was reserved on July 29 this year after it heard final arguments.
X Corp had moved the Court contending that the Sahyog portal enables blocking orders to be issued under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), thereby circumventing the due process mandated under Section 69A of the IT Act and the Shreya Singhal ruling.
The petition was filed following multiple takedown orders issued by the Ministry of Railways after posts about a recent stampede at New Delhi Railway Station.
X sought a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act does not authorise content blocking.
Senior Advocate KG Raghavan represented X Corp and Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi appeared for Digipub, a consortium of digital news portals that was allowed to intervene in the case.
They argued that the Sahyog portal has no statutory basis and bypasses procedural safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.
The Central government's arguments were led by Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta.
The government contended that the Sahyog portal was merely a streamlined mechanism to ensure quick action against illegal online content. In written submissions, it added that X Corp cannot claim that it has an absolute entitlement to 'safe harbour' protection.
It further maintained that since X Corp is a foreign company incorporated in the United States, it does not have the legal standing to file the present writ petition in India, as it cannot claim to have any fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
[Live Coverage]