One of the key fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution is the freedom of speech and this right gets tested in various formats. The latest exposition on the subject and specifically in the context of the digital space or the virtual world is through the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in X Corp Vs Union of India.

The Court had considered a challenge to the Government’s Sahyog portal; Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000; and Rule 3(1)(d) of the Intermediary Guideline Rules, 2021.

The Sahyog Portal, launched in 2024, is an initiative of the Government to automate the process of sending notices to intermediaries by the appropriate government or its agency under the IT Act, 2000 and to facilitate the removal or disabling of access to any information, data or communication link being used to commit an unlawful act. The idea of the portal is to unify all authorised agencies and intermediaries of the country on one platform for ensuring immediate action against the unlawful online information.

Sahyog Portal and Courts

The existence of the Sahyog Portal first came to light over the course of the proceedings in a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother in search of her missing child in the case of Shabana vs Government of NCT of Delhi W.P. (CRL) 1563/2024, before the Delhi High Court. With the Police submitting that there was a delay on the part of Instagram in disclosing details as sought to trace the missing person, the habeas corpus petition turned into a thorough review by the Court of the response mechanisms of digital intermediaries to information requests put forth by law enforcement agencies and other functionalities of the state. The Government informed the Court about the poor response of intermediaries and also about the Sahyog Portal created and the fact that around 65 intermediaries, all States and Union Territories as well as the Ministry of Finance (DGGI) and the Ministry of Defence were already on-boarded.

X Corp submitted that it could not be compelled to onboard the Sahyog Portal as the portal would fall outside the statutory scheme of Section 69A of the IT Act and that the said portal would create a parallel mechanism to the mechanism existing under Section 69A of the IT Act without any procedures or safeguards.

Karnataka HC judgment

A single judge of the Karnataka High Court has upheld the powers of the Government to issue content takedown orders on the portal and held as follows:

Freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions provided in Article 19(2).

The Rules that were considered and interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of Shreya Singhal Vs UoI (2015) 5 SCC 1, have undergone a complete change and demand their own interpretative frame, unsaddled by precedents that address a bygone regime.

Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 is not vague, ultra vires or arbitrary and when jointly read with Section 79(3)(b) it merely mandates due-diligence and observed that if the elaborate process for issuing content takedown orders under Section 69A were to be strictly followed, the damage that the unlawful content could cause may have already occurred.

Freedoms under Article 19 of the Constitution of India are available only to individual citizens of India and X Corp, being an American company, could not claim such freedoms.

The Sahyog Portal is constitutionally valid. “The Sahyog Portal, far from being a constitutional anathema, is in truth an instrument of public good. Conceived under the authority of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 Rules, it stands as a beacon of cooperation between citizen and intermediary, a mechanism through which the state endeavours to combat the growing menace of cybercrime. To assail its validity is to misunderstand its purpose; hence, the challenge is without merit.”

Law of the land

The Karnataka High Court took strong objection to its lackadaisical approach in acting against grievances on various grounds such as abuse/harassment, child sexual exploitation, hateful conduct, sensitive adult content, etc., and observed that such inaction was indicative of the platform’s poor attitude and unwillingness to comply with the laws of the land.

The Court also attributed the long list of pending litigation across various jurisdictions globally to X Corp’s disrespect for content take down orders.

The Court observed that even in the US, with the rigidly worded protection to free speech under the First Amendment, restrictions in the interest of the public have been imposed time and again.

The Court also called out the double standards demonstrated by X Corp in raising no objections to the ‘Take it Down Act, 2025’ of the US and at the same time challenging content take down provisions under Indian laws.

Social media

The Court also recorded strong sentiments in favour of strict regulation of social media platforms and observed that “social media, as the modern amphitheatre of ideas, cannot be left in a state of anarchic freedom. Regulation of information in this domain is neither novel nor unique; the United States regulates it, every sovereign nation regulates it, and India’s resolve to do likewise cannot, by any stretch of constitutional imagination, be branded unlawful. Unregulated speech, under the guise of liberty, becomes a licence for lawlessness.”

Open questions

X Corp has indicated that it would go on appeal. There is another matter which is pending before the Delhi High Court. In future, there would be interesting jurisprudence on the following open questions:

(i) Whether the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal is not relevant in light of the amended IT Intermediary Rules, 2021?

(ii) Whether the requirements of Article 19(2) of the Constitution will still have to be met as laid down by the Supreme Court even after the amendment?

(iii) Given the fact that Section 79(3)(b) survived a vires challenge with two caveats from the Supreme Court, one being the ostensible reference to Article 19(2), can it be said that Shreya Singhal is still not relevant?

(iv) Whether the authorised agencies have the flexibility to act either under Section 69A or Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000 and whether an intermediary can insist that only Section 69A should be resorted to?

The writer is an advocate and tax consultant

Published on October 15, 2025