Karnataka High Court Issues Notice To Centre On X Corp's Appeal Against Sahyog Portal, Content Blocking Orders

The Karnataka High Court has issued notice to the Centre on a writ appeal preferred by tech giant X Corp (formerly Twitter Inc.), against the single judge bench order dated 24.09.2025 that construed Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act as a standalone provision conferring authority on Central government officers to issue information blocking orders through Sahyog Portal.

The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, in a detailed judgment spanning 351 pages, had dismissed the viewpoint that information blocking orders can be issued only under Section 69A of the IT Act.

The Court had then concluded Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021 sufficiently permits the authorities to require intermediaries such as X Corp to remove unlawful content. If the intermediaries fail to comply, they risk losing the 'safe harbour' protection granted to them by virtue of Section 79 of the IT Act.

Section 79 of the IT Act (2000), as it stands now after the 2008 amendment provides certain network service providers/intermediaries a 'safe harbour' exemption for third-party content on their platforms.

The judgment pronounced last September also upheld the Constitutional validity of Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

The court had then opined that Section 79(3)(b), though it primarily pertains to the 'safe harbour' provision, also envisions that the said shield will be lost if the intermediaries fail to take down objectionable content even after receiving actual knowledge from the appropriate government authority or court order.

In the writ appeal now before the principal bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C. Poonacha, X Corporation once again asserts that information blocking and take-down directions can be promulgated only within the confines of Section 69A of IT Act, which has inbuilt statutory safeguards for handling harmful online content. According to the appellant, only the designated officer under Section 69A of the IT Act can issue information blocking orders to intermediaries.

The counsel for the petitioner, Senior Advocate KG Raghavan, submitted at the time of admission that Section 79 cannot be construed as a source of power for conferring authority to issue take-down orders; both Sections 69A and 79 should be read conjointly.

According to the single judge bench order, Section 69A of the IT Act helps government to instruct intermediaries to take down information owing to national security, sovereignty or public order. On the other hand, Section 79 should also be construed as an empowering provision which removes the 'safe harbour' immunity enjoyed by service providers/intermediaries upon their inaction to remove unlawful content.

X Corp argues that Section 3(1) (d) of the IT Rules, 2021 granted unchecked powers to countless executive authorities to issue unreasonable take-down orders to be followed within stipulated time frames, which is in direct contrast to the 2011 IT Rules considered in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. Relying on Shreya Singhal, X Corp argued today that the arbitrary checks and balances would result in censorship without reason, effectively nullifying the protection granted to intermediaries in Shreya Singhal.

In Shreya Singhal, the apex court had read down Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, by minimising the liability of intermediaries for third-party, user-generated content.

Earlier, the single judge bench deemed Section 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules as a reasonable restriction on free speech under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

The court had also distinguished X Corp's petition by pointing out that foreign companies cannot invoke Article 19(1)(a) to challenge restrictions on free speech in India.

The principal bench of the court has admitted the writ appeal today and posted the matter to June 11 to enable the Union of India to appear before the court.

Case Title: X Corp v. Union of India

Case No: WA 1827/2025 X CORP V. UOI