The Supreme Court in a recent order has stayed all pending challenges to the Centre’s Sahyog portal pending before two high courts on a petition filed by Centre seeking transfer of these cases to the top court for deciding the constitutional validity of section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act dealing with Centre’s power to order online content takedown.
In an order passed on July 22, made public recently, a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant issued notice on the Centre’s plea and posted the matter for further consideration on August 10.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta who represented the Centre urged the court to stay the proceedings before the high courts of Karnataka and Bombay which are hearing petitions on the same issue.
The bench, also comprising justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana directed, “Meanwhile, following proceedings before the high courts shall remain stayed.” These proceedings include cases filed by X Corp and Digipub News India Foundation pending in the Karnataka high court, and petitions filed by comedian Kunal Kamra and Haresh Jagtiani in the Bombay high court.
Mehta informed the court that the pendency of the matter in different high courts may result in conflicting verdicts on a common issue. He requested the court that since the matter relates to validity of a Central law, the same should be decided by the top court.
{{/usCountry}}Mehta informed the court that the pendency of the matter in different high courts may result in conflicting verdicts on a common issue. He requested the court that since the matter relates to validity of a Central law, the same should be decided by the top court.
{{/usCountry}}X Corp had approached the Karnataka high court last year for a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) of IT Act does not confer the power on Centre to issue blocking orders. It stated that such a power is relatable only to Section 69A of the IT Act. In September 2025, a single judge bench of justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed the plea, holding that Sahyog portal was only a facilitation tool and blocking powers exist under Section 69A. This verdict was taken in appeal by X Corp which is currently pending consideration.
Digipub News India Foundation too had joined the proceedings along with journalist Abhinandan Sekhri raising similar challenge to the law in question. It argued that Section 79 is a safe harbour provision that does not envisage orders for takedown of online content.
Similar issues arose for consideration in the Bombay High Court in February this year with Kamra raising a challenge to the Sahyog portal validity in addition to changes made to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2021, requiring social media intermediaries to remove “flagged” content within 36 hours. He stated that such takedown without notice to the author of the post violates principles of natural justice and bars the right to free speech which is a fundamental right. A similar plea was brought before the same high court by Jagtiani, a lawyer by profession.
The stay has come at a time when the Bombay HC had proceeded with the hearing of the matter and had directed Centre to file a response before the next date of hearing on August 14.
The Sahyog portal was developed by the Ministry of Home Affairs as a common platform to communicate government’s takedown orders to intermediaries. The petitions had claimed before the high courts that such a measure by the Centre did not follow the due process and the checks prescribed by the Supreme Court in the Shrey Singhal case of 2015.