K’taka HC junks X’s challenge to portal
The Karnataka High Court dismissed X Corp's petition against India's Sahyog portal, affirming that social media must be regulated for accountability and public good.
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed X Corp’s petition challenging the Union government’s Sahyog portal, holding that social media content cannot be left unregulated in the name of free speech and that the system represents a legitimate tool for ensuring digital accountability.
Justice M Nagaprasanna rejected X’s arguments as “devoid of merit” and described the portal as an “instrument of public good” that serves as a “beacon of cooperation” between citizens and social media intermediaries in combating cybercrime.
“Sahyog portal, far from being Constitutional anathema, in its truth is an instrument of public good conceived under the authority of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and Rule 3(d) of the 2021 Rules,” Justice Nagaprasanna said. “To assail its validity is to misunderstand its purpose.”
The judgment delivers a significant blow to X’s months-long legal challenge and validates the government’s content regulation system that 38 other intermediaries, including Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Telegram, have already joined.
The court issued a sharp warning to foreign social media companies, stating they cannot treat the Indian marketplace as a “playground” where information is disseminated “in defiance of the law” and later disowned through “a posture of detachment.”
Any platform operating within India’s jurisdiction must accept that access is a “privilege tied to responsibility and accountability,” the court emphasised, adding that none can claim exemption from the country’s legal framework.
The judgment also addressed X’s core constitutional arguments, ruling that free speech rights under Article 19(1)(a) are available only to Indian citizens, not foreign corporations such as X Corp. The court cautioned that American free speech jurisprudence cannot be transplanted into India’s constitutional framework.
Reiterating that free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution was not absolute, but limited by the reasonable restrictions in Article 19(2), Justice Nagaprassana said: “Social media, as a modern amphitheatre of ideas, cannot be left in a state of anarchic freedom.”
“The USA regulates it. Every sovereign nation regulates it. And India’s resolve likewise, cannot by any stretch of constitutional imagination, be branded as unlawful.”
The court rejected X’s central argument that the Sahyog portal lacked statutory backing and that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act does not confer blocking powers. X had argued that only Section 69A provides such authority under a structured framework with procedural safeguards, as established in the Supreme Court’s 2015 Shreya Singhal judgment.
However, Justice Nagaprasanna held that Shreya Singhal was based on the now-defunct Information Technology Rules 2011 and could not be applied to the new regime under the 2021 Rules, which require “fresh interpretation.”
The ruling dismisses arguments that senior advocate KG Raghavan had made throughout the hearings, including X’s contention that the portal forces platforms to make “business decisions” on content removal rather than following legal due process. Raghavan had argued that intermediaries faced a stark choice between complying with takedown requests or risking loss of safe harbour protection.
The court emphasised that regulation of information and communication has been a “historical and global reality” spanning from “the orient to the occidental” and from ancient messengers to modern platforms. It cautioned that unregulated speech under the guise of liberty must not become a “licence for lawlessness.”
The case began in March when X filed its petition claiming the Sahyog portal bypassed constitutional safeguards and created parallel blocking mechanisms outside established legal frameworks. The company had argued that thousands of government officials could now issue takedown orders without judicial oversight, violating separation of powers doctrine.
Throughout the proceedings, the government maintained that the portal was essential for swift action against harmful content and that X sought “special treatment” while complying with similar regulations globally.
The court concluded that by enabling accountability and structured coordination in the digital arena, the portal preserves both liberty and order — the “essential foundations of democracy.”
“Far from being an unconstitutional burden, regulation ensures liberty with responsibility, preserves social order, and strengthens the rule of law,” the judgment stated.
