The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (September 24) dismissed a petition by social media and tech giant X Corporation challenging the Union government’s ‘Sahyog’ portal – a platform used to issue content takedown orders to internet companies.
Holding that social media content “needs to be regulated” and cannot be left in a “state of anarchic freedom”, the court upheld the government’s mechanism as a valid “instrument of public good.”
The verdict concludes a significant legal battle in which X had characterised the Sahyog portal as a form of extra-legal “censorship” and the government had defended it as an efficient tool for regulation. The judgment will have major implications for all internet intermediaries operating in India.
Here is what to know about the dispute, the arguments from both sides and what the High Court has now ruled.
What is the Sahyog portal?
Launched by the Union Home Ministry in October 2024, the Sahyog portal is an online platform maintained by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre.
It serves as a centralised communication channel through which notices under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 are delivered to internet intermediaries – a broad term that includes telecom operators, internet service providers, social media platforms and web-hosting services.
Under Section 79, online intermediaries are granted “safe harbour” protection, which gives them legal immunity from liability for content generated by their users. For instance, without this protection, a platform could be sued for a defamatory post made by a user. With safe harbour, only the user who created the content faces legal action.
However, this immunity is conditional. Section 79(3)(b) states that intermediaries lose this protection if, upon receiving “actual knowledge” from an appropriate government agency about any unlawful information, they fail to “expeditiously remove or disable access” to that material. The Sahyog portal was created to automate and streamline the process of sending these notices.
According to information obtained by The Indian Express through RTI applications, 65 online intermediaries and nodal officers from all states, union territories and seven Central agencies were onboarded to the portal by April 2025. Between October 2024 and April 2025, the government issued 130 content takedown notices through Sahyog to platforms such as Google, YouTube, Amazon and Microsoft, among others.
Why did X sue the government?
In March 2025, X filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court, calling Sahyog a “censorship portal”. Its primary argument was that the government was using Section 79(3)(b) through the portal to circumvent the stricter, more transparent procedure for blocking content laid down in Section 69A of the IT Act.
X had pointed out key differences between the two sections. While Section 69A allows content blocking only on specific grounds related to national security and public order, orders under Section 79(3)(b) are for any content deemed “unlawful”, a much broader and undefined term.
Orders under Section 69A require the government to form a committee, provide an opportunity for the intermediary to be heard and issue a reasoned, written order. X argued that notices issued through Sahyog under Section 79(3)(b) lacked these procedural safeguards. It also noted that while only the Centre could issue orders under Section 69A, state governments and other agencies were issuing takedown notices through the portal.
X had also argued that the government’s actions violated the Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 verdict in Shreya Singhal v Union of India. In that judgment, the apex court had specified that a takedown order under Section 79(3)(b) could only be issued pursuant to a court order or a government notification and must relate to grounds similar to those in Section 69A.
Supporting X’s challenge, Digipub, a collective of 92 digital news publishers, intervened in the case, arguing that blocking orders through Sahyog directly affected its members, whose content was often targeted.
What was the government’s defence?
The Union government had defended Sahyog as a necessary and legitimate tool. It argued that the unique nature of the internet, with its “algorithmic curation systems” and rapid spread of information, necessitated a “distinct and stricter regulatory framework” compared to traditional media.
It asserted that safe harbour was not an absolute right but a statutory privilege contingent on intermediaries performing “demonstrable due diligence”. Failure to act promptly on notifications of illegal content, it said, would lead to the forfeiture of this immunity.
The government denied creating a parallel blocking system, emphasising that Sections 79 and 69A operated separately. The consequence of not complying with a Sahyog notice, it argued, was not a direct blocking order but the loss of legal immunity. The portal, it claimed, was simply an efficient mechanism to ensure “quick action against illegal online content.”
The government also challenged X Corp’s standing to file the petition, arguing that as a foreign company, it could not claim fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution. Article 19 provides the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression to Indian citizens.
What has the High Court ruled?
Dismissing X’s petition, Justice M Nagaprasanna said that “social media as a modern amphitheatre of ideas cannot be left in a state of anarchic freedom”. The court observed that social media regulation is a “must”, particularly in cases involving offences against women where the constitutional right to dignity is at stake.
Based on this foundational premise, the court found the Sahyog portal to be “far from being a constitutional anathema.” It was described as an “instrument of public good, conceived under the authority of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act” and a “beacon of cooperation between citizen and the intermediary.” To challenge its validity, the court said, “is to misunderstand its purpose.”
The court also accepted the Centre’s argument on X’s legal standing to bring the challenge. It held that Article 19 of the Constitution is a “charter of rights conferred upon citizens only.” Since X Corporation was not a citizen of India, the court ruled that “the protective embrace of Article 19 cannot be invoked” by the company.
In a sharp observation on the platform’s conduct, the court noted that X complied with takedown laws in its home jurisdiction of the United States, “[y]et the same platform refuses to comply with take-down directions in this nation. This is sans countenance.” The court emphasised that every platform operating in India “must accept that liberty is yoked with responsibility.”
The judgment places a clear onus on all internet intermediaries to comply with such notices or risk losing their safe harbour protections.
The Karnataka High Court observed that social media regulation is a “must”, particularly in cases involving offences against women where the constitutional right to dignity is at stake. 
Share
