Karnataka high court rejects X Corp plea against Centre’s Sahyog portal

The high court rejected X’s petition, saying communication has never been left unchecked and has always been subject to regulation

BENGALURU: The Karnataka high court on Wednesday rejected a petition filed by social media platform X Corp challenging the Centre’s direction to social media platforms to join the central Sahyog portal set up to issue content takedown orders.

(FILES) X Corp approached the high court in March this year, claiming that the Sahyog portal for issuing takedown orders lacked statutory backin (AFP)

Justice M Nagaprasanna said that content on social media needed to be regulated, and the court did not find merit in the issues raised by X Corp.

“From the orient to the occidant, the march of civilisation has borne witness to the inescapable truth that the spread and speed of information and communication has never been left unchecked or unregulated. It has always been subject to regulation,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.

“As and when technology developed from messengers to the postal age to WhatsApp, Instagram, and Snapchat, all have been subject to regulations under existing regimes both locally and globally. Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution, right to free speech and expression is hedged by reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). That the American jurisprudential edifice cannot be transplanted into the soil of the Indian constitutional thought, is a clear law laid down by the Apex Court right from 1950 till this date,” the bench said, rejecting the petition.

Raghavan repeatedly stressed in the course of court proceedings that the Sahyog portal was being used as a backdoor to evade the legally mandated process for blocking content, which is outlined under Section 69A of the IT Act and includes specific procedures and safeguards such as including reasons and opportunities to be heard, before content is blocked.

The Union government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, had argued that X’s refusal to join Sahyog was a “deliberate act” of non-cooperation that was hampering the government’s efforts to address “threats to public order and national security.”

Mehta had also warned that X Corp’s refusal to join the portal might result in the social media intermediary losing its safe harbour protection and that it might attract prosecution under the Information Technology Act.

The union government had accused X Corp of conflating Section 79, Section 69A, and Rule 3(1)(d), of the IT Act and argued that the Sahyog Portal merely facilitated communication under the due diligence framework, and that it was not a new blocking system.

The solicitor general had argued that while Section 69A of the Act dealt with blocking content and carried serious penalties for non-compliance, Section 79 and Rule 3(1)(d) pertained only to an intermediary’s due diligence to retain the safe harbour protection. He had told the court that while the portal relied upon Rule 3(1)(d) to issue takedown orders to intermediaries, it did not create a new system for blocking content.

Sahyog merely informs the intermediaries about objectionable content and lays out when safe harbour can be lost, the Centre had said.