X Corp vs UOI: Company Appeals Karnataka HC Verdict Backing Govt’s ‘Sahyog’ Content-Blocking Portal

Elon Musk's X Corp. has moved the Karnataka High Court challenging the September 24 single-judge bench judgment that upheld the Union government’s Sahyog portal and its use of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act to issue information-blocking orders independent of the statutory process under Section 69A.

The company argues that the judgment allows the government to create an “unconstitutional parallel blocking regime”, enabling thousands of executive and police officers across India to demand removal of online content without the checks mandated by Parliament or the Supreme Court.

Filed on November 14, the appeal contends that the court’s reading of the IT Act contradicts Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court held that online information can be blocked only under Section 69A or pursuant to a court order, and that Section 79 is merely a safe-harbour provision, not a source of blocking power. The company asserts that the impugned order “eviscerates” Section 69A by permitting the government to remove any information it deems “unlawful” via simple notifications sent by officers at central ministries, state departments or local police stations.

Central to the challenge is MeitY’s 31 October 2023 Office Memorandum, which authorised virtually every ministry and state police force to issue takedown orders under Section 79(3)(b) read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 IT Rules. The appeal reproduces dozens of such “impugned notifications” issued afterwards, empowering tiers of state police and departmental officers, from Railways to Heavy Industries, to block online content without invoking Section 69A or following the 2009 Blocking Rules.

According to X Corp., the result has been “rampant and arbitrary censorship”, including takedown orders against news reports, satire, political criticism, and commentary about public officials. Examples cited include orders directed at journalists, mainstream news organisations, satire posts, and political commentary, many of them describing threats to “public order”, “sovereignty”, “national security”, or “public peace”, even though those grounds fall squarely under Section 69A.

The appeal also challenges the government’s creation of the “Sahyog” Censorship Portal, a confidential online interface through which officers can issue takedown orders under 79(3)(b). X Corp. says the portal has no statutory basis, violates due process, and was designed expressly to bypass 69A after the Bombay High Court struck down a similar “fact-check unit” mechanism earlier this year.

The company argues that the single judge not only failed to examine these issues but also misread the MeitY memorandum as if it had appointed nodal officers under the 69A regime, when the memorandum in fact authorised officers outside that regime to issue blocking instructions under Rule 3(1)(d). The petition further points out that the judgment avoided engaging with subsequent Supreme Court rulings in Anuradha Bhasin and Kaushal Kishor, which reaffirmed that restrictions on speech must remain within the strict confines of Article 19(2).

Significantly, less than a month after the judgment, MeitY substituted Rule 3(1)(d) through an amendment notified on October 22, stating publicly that “safeguards” had been added. X Corp. terms this a tacit admission that the earlier rule, upheld by the single judge, had no safeguards and was unconstitutional from inception.

The appeal seeks to set aside the September 24 judgment, strike down both versions of Rule 3(1)(d), quash the MeitY memorandum and subsequent notices issued under it, and declare that Section 79(3)(b) does not empower the government to issue blocking orders.

Case Title: X Corp vs UOI