Why in News?

• The Karnataka High Court rejected social media platform X’s plea against the Central Government’s Sahyog Portal - a digital mechanism to issue content takedown notices.
• The Court upheld the State’s right to regulate social media, calling Sahyog an “instrument of public good” and a “beacon of cooperation” between citizens, state, and platforms.
• The Court stressed that social media platforms cannot operate in a state of “anarchic freedom.”

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Sahyog Portal - A Public Good
• X Corporation’s Challenge
• Government’s Defence
• High Court’s Ruling
• Key Legal Issues Touched upon by the HC
• Implication of the HC Ruling
• Conclusion

Sahyog Portal - A Public Good:

• Launched: October 2024 by the Union Home Ministry, and maintained by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C).
• Purpose: A centralised channel (which connects central agencies, state police, and online intermediaries to combat cybercrime) for issuing takedown notices to intermediaries.
• Legal basis: Section 79(3)(b), IT Act, 2000 – intermediaries lose “safe harbour protection” if they fail to act upon government notices of unlawful content.
• Operational data:
  • 65 intermediaries and nodal officers onboarded by April 2025.
  • 130 takedown notices issued (Oct 2024 – Apr 2025) to platforms including Google, YouTube, Amazon, Microsoft.

X Corporation’s Challenge:

• Claim: Sahyog is a “censorship portal” creating a parallel, extra-legal content blocking regime.
• Arguments:
  • Section 79(3)(b) notices bypass stricter procedural safeguards under Section 69A IT Act. Unlike Section 69A, notices under Section 79(3)(b) lack transparency, hearing, and written reasoning.
  • Violates Shreya Singhal (2015) judgment, in which the apex court had specified that a takedown order under Section 79(3)(b) -
    • Could only be issued pursuant to a court order or a government notification and
    • Must relate to grounds similar to those in Section 69A.
  • State governments and police issuing notices via Sahyog expands censorship
• Support: Supporting X’s challenge, Digipub (collective of 92 digital publishers) argued that blocking orders through Sahyog threatens media freedom.

Government’s Defence:

• Necessity: Social media requires stricter regulation due to algorithmic amplification and rapid spread of harmful content.
• ‘Safe harbour’ is not absolute: It is a statutory privilege conditional upon due diligence.
• Separation of powers: Section 79(3)(b) and Section 69A operate independently.
  • Section 79(3)(b): Failure to comply results in loss of safe harbour.
  • Section 69A: Blocking power on grounds of sovereignty, security, public order.
• Efficiency: Sahyog is an efficient, transparent mechanism to expedite unlawful content removal.
• X Corp - a foreign entity: Hence, it cannot invoke Article 19 rights (available only to Indian citizens).

High Court’s Ruling:

• The judgment outlined three red lines for social media companies -
  • Social media cannot remain unregulated.
  • Companies must comply with the laws of the land.
  • Past precedents like Shreya Singhal (2015) cannot be used to interpret new regulatory frameworks under IT Rules 2021.

Key Legal Issues Touched upon by the HC:

• Need for regulation:
  • The spread of information has always been regulated across civilizations.
  • Social media as a “modern amphitheater of ideas” cannot exist in anarchic freedom.
  • Regulation is essential, especially for offences against women to safeguard the constitutional right to dignity.
  • Regulation of social media is not unique to India, it is a global practice.
• Law of the Land - India is not a playground:
  • Platforms cannot operate in India while ignoring its statutory framework.
  • Liberty is tied to responsibility and accountability.
  • X complies with the Take It Down Act in the US but refuses to follow similar takedown orders in India.
  • American legal principles cannot be transplanted into the Indian constitutional framework.
• Shreya Singhal not applicable - New law, new interpretation:
  • X argued that the 2015 Shreya Singhal judgment allowed censorship only via courts or under Section 69A, IT Act.
  • Court held -
    • Shreya Singhal judgment applied to the 2011 IT Rules (now obsolete).
    • The 2021 IT Rules are distinct, requiring a new interpretative lens.
    • Precedents cannot bind evolving regulatory regimes.
• Extent of Article 19 of the Indian Constitution: It applies only to Indian citizens; X, as a foreign corporation, cannot claim these protections.

Implications of the HC Ruling:

• For intermediaries: Non-compliance with Sahyog notices may result in the loss of safe harbour protection - establishing legal liability.
• Digital governance: Shows India’s move towards platform accountability.
• Cybersecurity: Strengthens mechanisms against cybercrime, misinformation, and online harms.
• Law and constitution: Reasserts sovereign right to regulate speech, balancing Article 19(1)(a) – freedom of Speech with reasonable restrictions.
• Policy relevance: Demonstrates how courts interpret technological evolution in line with national context.

Conclusion:

The ruling reaffirms India’s sovereign regulatory authority over digital platforms, emphasizes the balance between free speech and accountability, and calls for continuous legal adaptation in line with technological advancements.