Karnataka High Court Refuses To Issue Notice On DIGIPUB News Foundation's Plea Against SAHYOG Portal, Lists Along With X Corp's Appeal

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (March 26) refused to issue notice on a plea filed by DIGIPUB News India Foundation and journalist Abhinandan Sekhri challenging an order holding Section 79(3)(b) IT Act as a standalone provision conferring authority on Central government officers to issue blocking orders through Sahyog Portal.The court said that it was not issuing notice on Digipub's plea for now and will list it along with a similar appeal by X Corp (formerly Twitter) which also challenges the single judge's order. When the matter was taken up, a division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C. Poonacha orally asked the DIGIPUB's counsel, "Your intervention application was rejected by the single judge bench". The counsel submitted, "I was heard on merits and then rejected. I have made an application for leave.. Also the delay of 17 days may be condoned". The court however orally said, "We are not issuing notice in the matter now. Notice was issued in a similar matter. We are simply listing it along with it". As the counsel for DIGIPUB sought that their plea be heard on merits the court said that it cannot hear it now. The court had earlier this month issued notice on similar appeal by X Corp and had listed the matter on June 11. For context single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, in a detailed judgment spanning 351 pages from September 2025, 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.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.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.Case Title: Digipub News India Foundation v/s Union of India & Ors. WA 1804 of 2025

Karnataka High Court Refuses To Issue Notice On DIGIPUB News Foundation's Plea Against SAHYOG Portal, Lists Along With X Corp's Appeal

Sebin James

Tags