The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition by X Corporation challenging the Government of India’s Sahyog portal. The portal is a centralised platform used to send content takedown orders to internet intermediaries. The court ruled that social media content requires regulation and cannot be left unchecked. The verdict affirms the government’s mechanism as a valid public interest tool. This ruling has wide implications for internet companies operating in India.
What Is the Sahyog Portal?
Launched in October 2024 by the Union Home Ministry, the Sahyog portal is managed by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre. It serves as a central communication channel to deliver notices under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This section holds internet intermediaries responsible for removing unlawful content once they receive actual knowledge from government agencies. The portal streamlines and automates this takedown notice process. By April 2025, 65 intermediaries and officers from all states and central agencies were integrated into Sahyog. Since launch, over 130 takedown notices were issued to major platforms like Google, YouTube, Amazon, and Microsoft.
X Corporation’s Legal Challenge
Recently, X Corporation filed a writ petition in Karnataka High Court calling Sahyog a censorship portal. X argued that the government used Section 79(3)(b) to bypass stricter rules under Section 69A of the IT Act. Section 69A requires a committee, a hearing for intermediaries, and reasoned orders for content blocking. In contrast, Section 79(3)(b) covers a broader unlawful content category without these safeguards. X also noted that state governments and various agencies issued takedown orders through Sahyog, unlike Section 69A, which only allows the Centre to do so. The company cited the Supreme Court’s 2015 Shreya Singhal ruling that takedown orders under Section 79(3)(b) must follow court orders or notifications similar to Section 69A grounds.
Government’s Defence of Sahyog
The Union government defended Sahyog as necessary for regulating the fast-moving digital space. It argued that safe harbour protections are conditional on intermediaries acting with due diligence. Failure to remove illegal content after notification leads to loss of immunity. The government denied Sahyog created a parallel blocking system and said Sections 79 and 69A operate independently. The portal only facilitates quick action against illegal content. It also challenged X’s standing to sue, stating that as a foreign company, X cannot claim fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, which protects only Indian citizens.
High Court’s Verdict
Justice M Nagaprasanna ruled that social media cannot be left in anarchic freedom. Regulation is essential, especially to protect constitutional rights like dignity in cases involving offences against women. The court described Sahyog as an instrument of public good and a cooperative tool between citizens and intermediaries. It rejected X’s challenge, noting that Article 19 rights apply only to citizens, and X being foreign could not invoke them. The court criticised X for complying with takedown laws in the US but refusing to do so in India. It emphasised that platforms operating in India must accept that liberty comes with responsibility. The ruling places a clear duty on intermediaries to comply with takedown notices or lose safe harbour protections.
Questions for UPSC:
- Critically analyse the role of internet intermediaries under the Information Technology Act, 2000, with respect to content regulation in India.
- Explain the balance between freedom of speech and the need for regulation on social media platforms. How do Indian laws address this balance?
- What are the implications of safe harbour provisions for digital platforms? Discuss with suitable examples from Indian and international contexts.
- Comment on the challenges of enforcing constitutional rights on foreign technology companies operating in India and suggest possible legal frameworks to address these issues.
