Knowledge Nugget: Sahyog Portal — What you must know for the UPSC exam

Why in the news?

Days after the Karnataka High Court rejected its plea against the Sahyog portal, Elon Musk-owned social media company X said that it was “deeply concerned” by the order and that it would file an appeal against it. Last week, the Karnataka High Court ruled that the Sahyog portal is “an instrument of public good”, which “stands as a beacon of cooperation” between citizens and social media intermediaries, through which the State endeavours to combat the growing menace of cybercrime. In this context, let’s know what the Sahyog portal is all about and key highlights of Karnataka HC’s judgement.

Key Takeaways :

1. The Sahyog portal was launched by the Union Home Ministry last year to expedite orders to block objectionable content. It is maintained by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C).

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

X’s lawsuit against Central Government and Karnataka HC’s Judgement

1. In March, Elon Musk-owned X had filed a lawsuit against the Central Government challenging the use of Section 79 (3) (b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, to issue blocking orders, claiming that it leads to the creation of a “parallel” and “unlawful” content censorship regime. 

2. The company also sought protection for its representatives and employees against coercive action for not joining Sahyog, a Ministry of Home Affairs portal, which it alleged was a “Censorship Portal”.

3. Central and state agencies and local police officers can issue blocking orders to social media platforms through the Sahyog portal. 

4. In rejecting X’s plea against the Central Government’s Sahyog portal last week, the Karnataka High Court ruled that the Sahyog portal is “an instrument of public good”, which “stands as a beacon of cooperation” between citizens and social media intermediaries, through which the State endeavours to combat the growing menace of cybercrime. “To assail its validity is to misunderstand its purpose. Hence, the challenge is without merit.”

5. The Karnataka High Court also drew some key red lines for social media companies operating in India: that regulation of speech on platforms is a given and it can not be left unchecked, India’s law is unique to the country’s context where American judicial thought can not be transplanted, “laws of the land” would have to be followed by companies, and the landmark 2015 Shreya Singhal judgement can not be used as a lens to interpret the changed regulatory needs of today.

6. Notably, in Shreya Singhal v Union of India case, 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.

BEYOND THE NUGGET:  Important sections of the IT Act of 2000

Section 69A

1. In Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act which criminally punished, among other things, sending false information “for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience”. After this decision, Section 69A of the IT Act became the primary law governing the matter.

2. Section 69A allows the Centre to issue orders blocking “any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource”, but unlike 66A, it contains safeguards against misuse, as the SC had noted in Shreya Singhal.

3. For blocking content under Section 69A, the Centre must deem it “necessary”. This “necessity”, however, is only justifiable under grounds provided in Article 19(2) of the Constitution which “imposes reasonable restrictions” on the freedom of speech “in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence”.

Section 79

1. Under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the social media intermediaries such as X, Telegram, Facebook, Instagram, etc., have the immunity against legal prosecution for content posted by users.

2. Section 79 says any intermediary shall not be held legally or otherwise liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted on its platform.

3. However, section 79(3)(b) states that the intermediary could be held liable if it does not immediately remove such unlawful information “upon receiving actual knowledge, or on being notified by the appropriate Government or its agency”.

4. The apex court in Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) case limited the scope of this provision, ruling that the requirement under Section 79(3)(b) will only kick in once a court order has been passed to that effect, or the government issues a notification stating that the content in question is related to grounds provided in Article 19(2).

Post Read Question

With reference to the Sahyog portal, consider the following statements:

1. The portal was launched in 2024 to expedite orders to block objectionable content.

2. It is maintained by the NITI Aayog.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 only

(b) 2 only

(c) Both 1 and 2

(d) Neither 1 nor 2

(Sources: X to appeal against HC’s dismissal of its petition on takedown orders, Why Karnataka HC upheld Union govt’s Sahyog portal, rejected X’s challenge)

Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – Indian Express UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.

🚨 Anniversary Special: Read the UPSC Essentials September 2025 special edition, celebrating two years of the magazine 🚨