X Corp Moves Karnataka High Court In Appeal Against Ruling Upholding Centre's Blocking Powers Through Sahyog Portal

X Corp has filed an appeal before the Karnataka High Court challenging the single judge decision that upheld the Union Government's authority to issue content blocking directions through the Sahyog portal, which is used to automate notices to intermediaries to remove unlawful online content.. The appeal, filed on November 14, seeks to overturn the judgment delivered on September 24, which had dismissed X Corp's plea questioning the scope of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Impugned Order Allows Union To Erode Constitutional Liberties, Violating Article 14 And Exposing Users To Unchecked Executive Power

The appeal filed by X Corp contends that the impugned order rests on erroneous findings that permit the Union of India to erode constitutional liberties and violate the Article 14 rights of the Appellant and other intermediaries. It argues that the judgment places Indian users at the mercy of numerous police and executive authorities who can issue blocking directions without complying with Section 69A, contrary to the legislative intent reflected in the IT Act.

According to the appeal, the order failed to appreciate that the Respondents' reliance on Rule 3(1)(d) and the Sahyog Portal results in extensive censorship of lawful information, news, journalism and public discussion by Indian citizens. Such actions, X Corp submits, are manifestly arbitrary, contrary to Article 14 and inconsistent with settled Supreme Court precedents. It adds that these executive practices undermine the doctrine of separation of powers and the rule of law.

X Corp warns that affirming the view taken in the impugned order and accepting the Respondents' interpretation of the IT Act would have consequences that extend beyond the present dispute. A future government, it argues, could wield the same power to censor any information, viewpoint or criticism it finds unacceptable, thereby depriving citizens of access to information and infringing the Article 14 rights of intermediaries.

Section 69A Rendered Meaningless

The appeal further asserts that the impugned order endorses a reading of the statute that treats Section 69A and Section 79 as parallel blocking powers, one with statutory safeguards and one without. This interpretation, it says, eviscerates Section 69A, renders it meaningless and offends Article 14 as well as several Supreme Court judgments.

The order, X Corp argues, does not address the contention that Rule 3(1)(d) is ultra vires Article 14 because it allows the same information to be blocked either under Section 69A or under Rule 3(1)(d) without the protections prescribed by the 2009 Blocking Rules. Nor does it examine the constitutionality of Rule 3(1)(d) under the twin test of classification mandated by Article 14.

The appeal also asserts that the Respondents are misusing Rule 3(1)(d) to block the very content that falls within the ambit of Section 69A while bypassing the mandatory statutory procedure. The blocking orders issued under Rule 3(1)(d) invoke grounds identical to those in Section 69A such as alleged threats to public order or assertions that the content threatens the nation's integrity, sovereignty, unity, security or harmony, or provokes unlawful activities.

X Corp Operates A Platform For Indian Citizens

Responding to the reasoning that X Corp has no locus merely because it is incorporated abroad, the appeal states that the company maintains a physical contact address in India, operates a platform used extensively by Indian citizens and plays a significant role in public, social and political discourse. It emphasises that the platform is used by citizens as well as by the Respondents for news, cultural interaction and civic engagement.

The appeal also challenges the observation that the Appellant seeks to disobey Indian law. It states that the finding is unfounded and must be set aside. X Corp submits that it complies with Indian law and its obligations under it. From January to June 2025, it received 29,118 removal requests from the Indian government, including those under Section 69A, and actioned 26,641 of them, resulting in an action rate of 91.49 per cent.

Sahyog Portal A Colourable Exercise Of Power

With respect to the Sahyog Portal, the appeal states that the impugned order erroneously attached significance to the nomenclature “Sahyog” and wrongly concluded that the Censorship Portal suffers from no constitutional infirmity. X Corp argues that the portal is a colourable exercise of power that violates Articles 162 and 246 of the Constitution.

It adds that the Censorship Portal is not traceable to any provision of the IT Act, making it an impermissible use of executive power unsupported by statutory authority.

Wrong Reliance On US Court Judgments

The appeal also disputes the trial court's reliance on certain foreign judgments. It argues that the order failed to consider several US Supreme Court precedents cited by the Appellant, which reaffirm that the First Amendment protects online speech to the same degree as speech in any other medium. According to X Corp, the court relied on foreign laws that are inapplicable, not in force and were never relied on or addressed by any of the parties.

In its original petition, X Corp had argued that officers of the Central Government do not have independent statutory power to issue blocking orders under Section 79(3)(b). According to the company, such directions can only be issued under the detailed procedural framework prescribed in Section 69A of the IT Act, read with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The single judge, however, rejected this contention, holding that the Government's use of the Sahyog portal was legally valid and consistent with the scheme of the IT Act.

The September 24 judgment had strongly defended the need for regulatory oversight over online platforms. Comparing social media to a modern public arena, the Court observed that it cannot be permitted to function in what it called a state of anarchic freedom. It held that regulation of information is neither unprecedented nor unlawful, noting that the United States and other sovereign nations also regulate online content. India's resolve to regulate the digital domain, the Court said, could not be branded unconstitutional.

The Court further remarked that speech on social media must be subject to reasonable restrictions. It stated that unregulated expression under the banner of liberty risks degenerating into lawlessness, whereas regulated speech preserves both liberty and order, which the Court described as democracy's twin pillars. It cautioned that no social media platform can claim exemption from the discipline of Indian law or treat the country's information ecosystem as a space where content may be disseminated in disregard of statute and later disowned. The regulation of social media content, the judge noted, was essential, especially in matters concerning offences against women, as the right to dignity is at the heart of the Constitution.

The single judge also held that X Corp, being a foreign company, could not invoke Article 19 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression only to citizens. The Court rejected the platform's reliance on Article 19(1)(a), observing that the protective scope of the fundamental right did not extend to non-citizens.

Upholding the validity of the Sahyog portal, the Court described it as an instrument of public good designed under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and Rule 3(b) of the 2021 Rules. The portal, it said, is a cooperative mechanism intended to combat the growing threat of cybercrime. The Court dismissed X Corp's challenge to the portal's legality, stating that the criticism stemmed from a misunderstanding of its purpose.

The judgment also pointed to what it described as inconsistency in X Corp's regulatory posture. It noted that the company complies with takedown mandates in the United States, where violation of such orders can attract criminal liability, but takes a different position in India despite operating within its jurisdiction.

Soon after losing the case on September 29, X Corp's Global Affairs division had said it respectfully disagreed with the ruling and would pursue appellate remedies. The company had also asserted that the Karnataka High Court's ruling was inconsistent with the Bombay High Court decision striking down the Central Government's Fact Check Unit. It reiterated its disagreement with the view that a foreign corporation cannot invoke Article 19(1)(a).

With X Corp now having formally filed its appeal, the division bench will revisit key questions on the scope of intermediary liability, the legal status of the Sahyog portal, the interpretation of Sections 69A and 79 of the IT Act, and the constitutional standing of foreign entities in the Indian digital regulatory framework.

Case Title: X Corp vs Union of India and Others