logo
appgoogle
EquityWireContent Blocking: US-based X to appeal HC upholding govt order to block content, Sahyog portal
Content Blocking

US-based X to appeal HC upholding govt order to block content, Sahyog portal

This story was originally published at 13:07 IST on 29 September 2025
Register to read our real-time news.

Informist, Monday, Sept. 29, 2025

 

NEW DELHI – US-based technology giant X Corp. said Monday on its Global Government Affairs social media handle that it will file an appeal in the division bench of the Karnataka High Court against the latter's single-judge order last week upholding the government's content blocking order to the social media company under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. X will also challenge the court's ruling to uphold the legality of the central government's Sahyog portal, an online platform used to issue content takedown orders to intermediaries.

 

The social media company said it was "deeply concerned" by the recent court order, which "will allow millions of police officers to issue arbitrary takedown orders" through a secretive online portal called Sahyog. This new regime has no basis in the law, circumvents Section 69A of the IT Act, violates previous Supreme Court rulings, and infringes upon Indian citizens' constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression, said X. The Sahyog portal enables officers to order content removal based solely on allegations of "illegality" without judicial review or due process for the speakers, and threatens platforms with criminal liability for non-compliance, said X.

 

"X respects and complies with Indian law, but this order fails to address the core constitutional issues in our challenge and is inconsistent with the Bombay High Court's recent ruling that a similar regime was unconstitutional," the Elon Musk-owned company said. "We respectfully disagree with the view that we have no right to raise these concerns because of our incorporation abroad—X contributes significantly to public discourse in India and the voice of our users is at the heart of our platform. We will appeal this order to defend free expression." 

 

Last week, Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition by X against the Sahyog portal and said, "The petitioner who seeks sanctuary must be a citizen of the nation. Sahyog portal stands as a beacon of cooperation between citizens and intermediaries. Hence the challenge is without merit". 

 

"Social media cannot be left in the state of anarchic freedom. Every sovereign nation regulates social media. No social media platform can treat the Indian market place as a mere playground. In the light of the observations, the content of social media needs to be regulated," he added.

 

The court was hearing X Corp.'s plea seeking to declare that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act did not confer authority on the Centre to issue information blocking orders. The petitioner sought a court declaration that the blocking orders could only be issued under Section 69A of the Act, read with Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.

 

Section 69A of the 2000 Act grants the government direct power to block online content under specific conditions and procedural safeguards, while Section 79(3)(b) is an intermediary liability provision that, by negating safe harbor, forces intermediaries to remove unlawful content upon official notification, which has been used to bypass the safeguards of Section 69A. The core difference is that Section 69A is an order-making power for blocking, whereas Section 79(3)(b) is a liability provision for intermediaries which, when invoked for removal, can be seen as an indirect blocking mechanism. 

 

The petitioner argued that the Centre's Sahyog portal enables blocking orders to be issued under Section 79(3)(b) of the 2000 Act, thereby circumventing the due process mandated under Section 69A. The petitioner argued that the Sahyog portal has no statutory basis and bypasses procedural safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgment in the Shreya Singhal versus Union of India in 2015.

 

The government argued that the Sahyog portal was merely a streamlined mechanism to ensure quick action against illegal online content. X couldn't claim that it had an absolute entitlement to 'safe harbour' protection, the government said.  End

 

Reported by Surya Tripathi

Edited by Tanima Banerjee

 

For users of real-time market data terminals, Informist news is available exclusively on the NSE Cogencis WorkStation.

 

Cogencis news is now Informist news. This follows the acquisition of Cogencis Information Services Ltd. by NSE Data & Analytics Ltd., a 100% subsidiary of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. As a part of the transaction, the news department of Cogencis has been sold to Informist Media Pvt. Ltd.

 

Informist Media Tel +91 (11) 4220-1000

Send comments to feedback@informistmedia.com

 

© Informist Media Pvt. Ltd. 2025. All rights reserved.

To read more please subscribe

Share this Story:

twitterlinkedinwhatsappmaillinkprint

Related Stories

Premium Stories

Subscribe