Karnataka High Court seeks Centre’s response to X Corp's appeal against Sahyog portal

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday sought the response of the Union government on an appeal filed by X Corp (formerly Twitter) challenging the Central government’s Sahyog portal - an online platform used to issue content takedown orders to online intermediaries like X [X Corp v. Union of India]..X Corp told the Court that the Sahyog portal is being used by authorities across the country to issue online content takedown directions outside the statutory blocking process.A Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakru and Justice CM Poonacha issued notice to the government on the appeal by X Corp challenging a verdict of the single-judge, who had upheld the portal's validity. The Court posted the matter for further hearing on June 11..X Corp initially moved High Court single-judge challenging the Sahyog portal mechanism on the ground that it circumvents due process requirements under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), and violates safeguards laid down in the Shreya Singhal case, when it comes to regulating or directing the blocking of online content.The petition was filed following multiple takedown orders issued by the Union Ministry of Railways in relation to posts about a recent stampede at New Delhi Railway Station. X sought a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act - under which the portal has been set up - does not authorise content blocking.On September 24 last year, Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the plea. Justice Nagaprasanna opined that X Corp cannot claim any violation of free speech under Article 19 of the Constitution since the same is available only to Indian citizens..In its appeal before the Division Bench, X Corp has contended that between January and June 2025, it received 29,118 requests from the Indian government for removal of posts and complied with 26,641 of them, amounting to a 91.49% compliance rate..According to X Corp, the government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology 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 created an unlawful parallel censorship regime that bypasses the statutory framework under Section 69A of the IT Act.As per the petition, Section 69A and the 2009 Blocking Rules form the only lawful mechanism for blocking online content in India. This framework, upheld by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), contains procedural safeguards and permits blocking only on the narrow grounds listed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.X Corp contends that Section 79 is merely a safe-harbour provision that protects intermediaries from liability and does not grant the government independent power to order content blocking. However, authorities have allegedly misused Section 79(3)(b) with Rule 3(1)(d), which requires intermediaries to remove unlawful content.The appeal points to a memorandum dated October 31, 2023 issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) which authorised thousands of executive officials and police officers across the country to issue blocking directions under this route, bypassing the Section 69A process.It also challenges the creation of the “Sahyog” portal, allegedly used to issue such orders without transparency.The single-judge order wrongly held that Shreya Singhal was no longer applicable, even though the core statutory provisions remain unchanged, the plea has claimed..X Corp was represented by Senior Advocate KG Raghavan with a team from Poovayya & Co led by advocate Manu Prabhakar Kulkarni..Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.