‘Liberty is yoked with responsibility’: Karnataka HC dismisses X Corp’s plea against takedown orders, Sahyog portal

Launched in 2024 by the Union Home Ministry, the Sahyog portal expedites orders to block objectionable content. It is maintained by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C).

X Corp, represented by Senior Advocate K G Raghavan, had previously argued before the high court that any takedown order ought to be issued under Section 69A of the IT Act, and not Section 79(3)(b). It also objected to the Sahyog portal for intermediaries, referring to it in an earlier hearing as a “censorship portal.”

The Digipub News India Foundation, represented by Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, had also argued that takedown orders were being given in an ad hoc manner which had a chilling effect on freedom of speech.

The Centre on the other hand, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, had emphasised the importance of regulating such online platforms while questioning whether X could take advantage of the right to freedom of speech as it was a foreign corporation and not a citizen of India. It also argued that the “safe harbour” protections against liability for content posted on intermediaries, were not a matter of right but an exemption to a general rule of liability. The Centre had also pointed out that X was the only intermediary not to have gotten onboard with Sahyog.

‘Freedom of speech subject to reasonable restrictions’

Pronouncing the operative portion of the judgment, Justice Nagaprasanna stated, “From Orient to Occident, the march of civilisation has borne witness to the inescapable truth that information or communication has never been left unchecked and unregulated…..from messengers to the postal age till the age of Whatsapp, Instagram and Snapchat, all have been regulated by regulatory regimes…”

Stating that the right to freedom of speech in India was subject to reasonable restrictions, the bench said that American judicial thought could not be imposed on the Indian Constitution as previously emphasised by the Supreme Court.

On the topic of freedom of speech in India being applicable to X, and regarding the Sahyog Portal, the bench said, “A petitioner who seeks sanctuary under its canopy must be a citizen of the nation, failing which the protective embrace of Article 19 cannot be invoked. The Sahyog Portal, far from being constitutional anathema, in its truth is an instrument of public good conceived under Section 79 (3)(b) of the IT Act and Rule 3(d) of the 2021 Rules…”

“…it stands as a beacon of cooperation between citizen and intermediary, a mechanism through which the State seeks to combat the growing menace of cyber crime. To assail its validity is to misunderstand its purpose,” it added.

‘Platform subject to regulatory regime in US’

The court also did not agree with the petitioner’s contention that the case of Shreya Singhal v Union of India would be applicable in the present situation, stating that it referred to the 2011 IT Rules, whereas the 2021 Rules would have to be interpreted separately.

Stating that platforms operating in India must accept that “liberty is yoked with responsibility”, the court went on to say, ” The petitioner’s platform (X Corp) is subject to a regulatory regime in the USA, its birthplace and footland, under the Take It Down Act of the United States…..but the same petitioner refuses to follow, on the shores of this nation, similar takedown orders…this is sans countenance. The petition, for all the aforesaid reasons, lacking in merit, stands rejected.”

After the pronouncement of the order, X Corp requested that the Union’s previous stand that matters regarding the Sahyog Portal would not be precipitated, be extended for two weeks. Justice Nagaprasanna stated that this would be difficult after the order was already passed, but added that the full judgment would be released by Thursday evening.