Govt Defends Sahyog Portal Before Karnataka HC, Argues X Corp Lacks Right to Invoke Free Speech

In a charged hearing before the Karnataka High Court on Friday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government in X Corp’s (formerly Twitter's) challenge to content takedown directions via the Sahyog portal, mounted a robust defense of the portal, rejecting X Corp’s challenge to its legality.

He argued that the portal is merely an administrative mechanism and does not violate constitutional rights, especially as X Corp, being a foreign entity, is not entitled to invoke protections under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

Appearing for the Centre, SG Mehta contended that not all speech on platforms like X qualifies for constitutional protection. “Many accounts are run by companies promoting their products or policies. This is commercial speech, which enjoys limited protection under Article 19(1)(a),” he said. The portal, he emphasized, simply notifies intermediaries about content flagged as unlawful under existing statutes; it neither mandates removal nor imposes penalties.

Referring to Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, Mehta clarified: “It only issues a caution. If a post violates the Copyright Act, for instance, the government merely informs the platform. If someone is aggrieved, their remedy lies in challenging the underlying law, not the act of flagging it".

X Corp, according to Mehta, cannot claim constitutional protection. “They themselves say they are a platform and not a speaker. If so, how can they invoke Article 19(1)(a)?” he asked. To counter this, he said, X Corp refers to the “chilling effect” doctrine, the idea that users may be discouraged from expressing themselves if their posts are removed. But Mehta called this a “vague and overused defense,” citing the Anuradha Bhasin ruling (internet shutdowns in J&K) that clarified such concerns don’t automatically invalidate reasonable restrictions.

Mehta further invoked several constitutional precedents to argue that restrictions under Article 19(2) are dynamic. “The term ‘reasonable’ was deliberately used in the Constitution to give elasticity to restrictions. Public order, for instance, must be construed contextually and expansively,” he argued, referencing debates from the Constituent Assembly and decisions like Kaushal Kishor and Puttuswamy.

Responding to a core concern raised by the government, the anonymity on X, Mehta questioned: “If a user posts illegal content and is anonymous, who will the aggrieved party sue? X Corp has no officers in India except a grievance officer. Where is the accountability?”

He also criticized the platform for selective compliance. “Across the world, they comply with local laws. But in India, they object to even a non-binding mechanism like Sahyog. All other intermediaries have joined the portal, only X Corp has refused.”

Today, the Solicitor General concluded his arguments and filed written submissions before the court. The matter will now be heard next on July 25 at 10:00 AM, when Senior Advocate K.G. Raghavan is scheduled to present his rejoinder arguments.

On Thursday, Mehta had submitted that the contingencies under Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules do not result in the take down of the content only. It only results in the government intimating the social media intermediary that a particular content is illegal, and they have the choice to continue with it or face the competent court.

He had emphasized that such notifications are intended to protect ordinary users from online fraud, phishing scams, fake booking websites, and deceptive financial schemes.

The matter involves X Corp (formerly Twitter) contesting the legality of the government’s content removal directives and the use of the Sahyog portal under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. The social media company has argued that the portal allows arbitrary censorship and bypasses the safeguards laid down under Section 69A and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.

The bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna is hearing the case. The petitioner has been supported by Digipub, a collective of 92 media organisations, which has raised concerns over transparency and the impact on journalistic freedom.

On July 11, 2025, X Corp, represented by Senior Advocate K.G. Raghavan, had argued that the Sahyog portal enables arbitrary censorship by allowing thousands of government officers across India to issue blocking directives based on subjective interpretations of morality and law, lacking the procedural safeguards mandated by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India.

The company had contended that such orders should follow the structured process under Section 69A of the IT Act, which includes oversight by an inter-ministerial committee and opportunities for affected parties to be heard. Sr Adv. Raghavan had highlighted specific instances, such as a notice to block content related to a sexual assault case at Anna University, to underscore the inconsistent application of these orders.

Case Title: X Corp vs UOI

Hearing date: July 18, 2025

Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna