E-Paper
X says Sahyog portal a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’ before HC
X Corp claims the Sahyog portal enables unconstitutional censorship, misusing IT laws to bypass legal safeguards, as it challenges government orders in court.
X Corp on Friday accused the Union government of using the “innocuously named” Sahyog portal as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” to issue illegal content blocking orders that bypass statutory safeguards, escalating its legal challenge against what it calls an unconstitutional censorship mechanism.
Appearing before the Karnataka High Court, senior advocate KG Raghavan argued further on the company’s core content that the government was misusing Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act and Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 IT Rules to circumvent due process protections upheld by the Supreme Court in the landmark Shreya Singhal case.
“It is innocuously named but it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. We are a responsible business and we will abide by the law of every country we operate in. But the question is what is the correct law?” Raghavan told Justice M Nagaprasanna.
“The same grounds of sovereignty, integrity, public order are used under Section 69A. Then why use Section 79 at all? This amounts to a dangerous circumvention of law,” he argued.
The hearing represented the latest round in X’s challenge to the government’s directive mandating social media platforms join the Sahyog portal, a centralised system for content takedown requests that the company argues violates constitutional principles.
X’s core argument centres on the interpretation of Section 79 of the IT Act, which provides “safe harbour” protection to intermediaries from legal liability for user-generated content. The platform contends this provision is a protective shield rather than an empowering mechanism for government officials to issue takedown orders.
“If your interpretation of Section 79 is accepted, then any officer in this country can decide what is lawful or not, on a purely subjective basis. This is absurd and shocking. It allows officers to be both accuser and judge,” Raghavan argued.
The government has revealed that 38 intermediaries including Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Telegram have joined the portal, with Meta currently testing integration. X remains the most prominent holdout, arguing the system allows thousands of government officials to issue content blocking orders without proper judicial oversight.
Raghavan emphasised that empowering multiple government officials to issue takedown notices based on their discretion erodes the statutory safe harbour protection granted to intermediaries. He maintained that Section 79 should be understood as “a statutory right, not an exemption granted at the government’s discretion.”
“The fear psychosis being created undermines constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 19,” he said, arguing that procedural safeguards under Section 69A remain the only lawful route to block online content.
Friday’s hearing follow one from last week dramatic moments when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta created a fake X account named “Supreme Court of Karnataka” to demonstrate misinformation risks, only to have the platform suspend the fictional handle during the hearing itself.
The government has also challenged X’s legal standing to bring the case, arguing that as a foreign company not incorporated in India, it cannot claim constitutional protections under Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Mehta had previously warned that any resistance to takedown orders could result in X losing its immunity from legal consequences under Indian law, including withdrawal of safe harbour protection that shields it from liability for user content.
The Karnataka High Court will continue hearing the matter on July 29.
