Recently, the Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition filed by X Corp (formerly Twitter) challenging the legality of the “Sahyog Portal” launched by the Central Government.This judgment marks an important development in India’s ongoing debate over digital governance, social media accountability, and freedom of expression.

What Is the Case About

¨     The Central Government developed the Sahyog Portal as an online platform to facilitate the identification and removal of objectionable or unlawful content under Section 79(3)(B) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000.

The portal aims to

¨     Establish quick and transparent coordination between social media intermediaries and government agencies.

¨     Ensure prompt action against fake news, hate speech, and content violating Indian laws.

Karnataka High Court ruling

¨     Justice Nagaprasanna described Sahyog as an “instrument of public good” and “beacon of cooperation between citizen and intermediary” also vital for protecting women’s dignity.

¨     The court ruled that Article 19 rights apply only to Indian citizens, and since X is a foreign company, it cannot claim these protections.

¨     It also upheld the validity of Sahyog and Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, stating that the 2021 IT Rules require a fresh legal interpretation, distinct from the outdated 2011 rules considered in the Shreya Singhal case.

¨     Shreya Singhal case: The court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 ruling that it violates freedom of speech and personal liberty.

Why Did X Challenge the Sahyog Portal in Court

¨     In March 2025, Elon Musk-owned X filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court, questioning the legality of the Sahyog portal, which it labelled a “censorship portal.”

¨     The company argued that the government was invoking Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act to sidestep the stricter and more transparent procedure under Section 69A thus creating a “parallel” and “unlawful” censorship mechanism that lacked constitutional protections.

Government’s Justification for the Sahyog Portal

¨     The Union government defended the Sahyog portal as a necessary regulatory tool, citing the internet’s rapid, algorithm-driven content spread that demands stricter oversight than traditional media.

¨     Rejecting claims of creating a parallel censorship regime, the government clarified that Sections 79 and 69A function independently. The portal is merely an administrative mechanism designed to enable swift action against illegal content online.

¨     The government also challenged X Corp’s locus standi, noting that as a foreign company, it cannot claim fundamental rights under Article 19, which protects freedom of speech and expression exclusively for Indian citizens.

¨     Additionally, the government highlighted that X remains the only major intermediary yet to integrate with Sahyog.

Key Provisions of the IT Act, 2000 — Comparative Table

No.

Section

Subject

Purpose

Key Provisions

Current Status

1

Section 66(A)

Sending offensive or false messages online

To penalize any person who sends offensive, false, or misleading information through electronic means

- Made it punishable to send messages that are “offensive,” “menacing,” or “false” through a computer or social media.
- Punishment: Up to 3 years of imprisonment.

Struck down — In Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional, citing violation of freedom of speech.

2

Section 69

Surveillance, interception, and decryption of information

To empower the government to intercept, monitor, or decrypt any information in the interest of national security or public order

- The government may order interception or decryption if it is necessary for national security, public order, or crime prevention.
- Such orders can be issued only by authorized officers and for legitimate reasons.

 In force — Still valid, though there are ongoing concerns regarding privacy and misuse.

3

Section 79

Intermediary liability (for platforms like X, Meta, YouTube, etc.)

To define the legal responsibility of online platforms and intermediaries

- If a platform fails to remove unlawful content after receiving notice from the government or court, it can be held liable.
- Intermediaries that comply with legal directions get “Safe Harbor Protection.”