E-Paper
Sahyog backdoor to evade legal process, X tells K’taka HC
X Corp claims the Indian government pressures social media to remove content without due process, challenging the Sahyog portal in court.
X Corp on Tuesday accused the Union government of forcing social media platforms to make commercial decisions on content removal rather than following legal due process, as it concluded arguments in its challenge to the controversial Sahyog portal.
Senior advocate KG Raghavan told the Karnataka High Court that the portal effectively shifts the burden from legal authorities to platforms themselves, creating an improper business dilemma for intermediaries.
“The intermediary, which earns out of this business, is required to take a business decision whether to accede to the request of the litigant, whose right is taken away, under Section 79,” Raghavan told Justice M Nagaprasanna.
Raghavan argued that intermediaries face a stark choice under the current system — either comply with takedown requests or refuse and risk losing safe harbour protection that shields them from liability for user content. This commercial pressure, he contended, bypasses the legally mandated due process framework.
“However, this directly contradicts Shreya Singhal. One of the reasons why the Supreme Court said section 69A is good is because the application of one’s mind is not there,” he said, referring to the 2015 landmark judgment that established procedural safeguards for content blocking.
The Sahyog portal, developed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, sends real-time takedown notices to digital platforms and has become the central battleground in X’s legal challenge. The government has revealed that 38 intermediaries including Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Telegram have joined the portal, while X remains the most prominent holdout.
Raghavan reiterated that the portal operates solely under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, which he argued cannot be used as a source of blocking powers. He maintained that only Section 69A, as upheld in Shreya Singhal, authorises content blocking under a “legally supervised framework” with specific procedures and safeguards.
The senior advocate argued that Sahyog was being used as a “backdoor to evade the legally mandated process” for blocking content, which includes requirements for providing reasons and opportunities to be heard before content is removed.
“The Sahyog portal lacks statutory backing and there is no legal or independent body reviewing and authorising the takedown orders. It is happening entirely through an executive mechanism, which undermines checks and balances,” Raghavan said.
Senior advocate Aditya Sondhi, appearing for digital media collective DIGIPUB as an intervening party, supported X’s position by emphasising that the Supreme Court’s Shreya Singhal judgment remained binding precedent.
The arguments came as X concluded its challenge to the government’s directive mandating social media platforms join the Sahyog portal. The case, filed in March, argues that the government is creating unconstitutional parallel blocking mechanisms that bypass established legal safeguards.
The government has consistently opposed X’s petition, with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta previously telling the court that the platform complies with takedown laws globally but seeks “special treatment” in India.
Mehta had warned that X’s refusal to join the portal could attract legal consequences, including loss of safe harbour protection and prosecution under the IT Act.
The Karnataka High Court has now closed all arguments and reserved its judgment on X’s petition.
