Social media company X (formerly Twitter) on Monday criticised the Karnataka High Court’s September 24 order upholding the validity of the government’s Sahyog Portal, calling it a blow to free expression in India while confirming that it will appeal the order.
In a post from its global government affairs account, X said it was “deeply concerned” about the court’s ruling, which dismissed its petition challenging the Centre’s direction to social media platforms to join the portal . The company argued that Sahyog “allows millions of police officers to issue arbitrary takedown orders” through a “secretive online portal” without judicial oversight or due process.
X maintained that the order “has no basis in law, circumvents Section 69A of the IT Act, violates Supreme Court rulings, and infringes Indian citizens’ constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression.”
While the government argued the portal was essential for swift action against harmful content, X said the system forces platforms to take down posts based only on allegations of illegality, under threat of criminal liability, and that it will pursue an appeal “to defend free expression.”
One of X’s core arguments in the court case was that the Sahyog Portal circumvents the procedural safeguards established under Section 69A of the IT Act. Section 69A allows the central government to issue content blocking orders on specific grounds such as national security or public order, and mandates a structured process involving a review committee, written orders, and hearings. In contrast, X contended, the Sahyog Portal enables police officers to issue takedown requests under Section 79(3)(b) without judicial oversight or due process, thereby creating a “parallel blocking power” that lacks the legal protections afforded by Section 69A.
{{/usCountry}}One of X’s core arguments in the court case was that the Sahyog Portal circumvents the procedural safeguards established under Section 69A of the IT Act. Section 69A allows the central government to issue content blocking orders on specific grounds such as national security or public order, and mandates a structured process involving a review committee, written orders, and hearings. In contrast, X contended, the Sahyog Portal enables police officers to issue takedown requests under Section 79(3)(b) without judicial oversight or due process, thereby creating a “parallel blocking power” that lacks the legal protections afforded by Section 69A.
{{/usCountry}}On September 24, the Karnataka High Court dismissed X Corp’s challenge, ruling that social media content “cannot be left unregulated in the name of free speech.” Justice M Nagaprasanna, reading out the portions of the judgment, described the Sahyog Portal as an “instrument of public good” and “a beacon of cooperation” between citizens and platforms in tackling cybercrime.
“Sahyog Portal, far from being Constitutional anathema, in its truth is an instrument of public good conceived under the authority of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and Rule 3(d) of the 2021 Rules,” the judgment said.
On X’s status as a foreign entity, the court said Article 19(1)(a) rights apply only to Indian citizens, not corporations like X, which is incorporated in Nevada and headquartered in San Francisco. X said in its Monday post that this was an unfair dismissal of its concerns, arguing that it plays a key role in India’s public discourse.
The court also rejected X’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s Shreya Singhal ruling, noting that it was based on older IT rules and does not apply to the current regime under the 2021 Rules. The judgment validated the legitimacy of the Sahyog Portal, which 38 other intermediaries, including Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Telegram, have already joined, with X remaining as one of the last big tech companies resisting compliance.