‘Section 79 Can’t Be Used as Executive’s Backdoor’: X Corp Tells Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday concluded the hearing in the plea filed by X Corp (formerly Twitter) challenging the Centre’s content takedown directions issued through the Sahyog Portal. Senior Advocate K.G. Raghavan, appearing for the company, concluded his rejoinder arguments, contending that the portal and the associated rules go beyond the powers permitted under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Raghavan questioned the use of Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which allows for the removal of content deemed to be for "any unlawful purpose." He argued that this phrase was not backed by the parent Act and could not be added by delegated legislation.

Highlighting the overlap between Sections 69A and 79(3) of the IT Act, Raghavan submitted that both provisions operate on similar grounds for takedown of content, and the executive cannot be given the choice to pick one over the other depending on convenience. “They say they will use Section 79 in situations where they don’t want to invoke Section 69A as the latter is penal. That argument is fallacious. The grounds for both are identical. When the legislature has not made a distinction, the executive cannot,” he told the bench.

He also pointed out the risk of conflicting actions by government officers. “One officer might use 69A while another uses 79 for the same post. Is this how we want our law to function? There has to be a harmonious, not antimonious, reading of the legislation,” he submitted.

Raghavan contended that the Sahyog Portal mechanism is a “complete cover-up” for a lack of statutory backing. “The portal is operated under Rule 3(1)(d). If that rule goes, the entire process goes. They also know that Section 79 is not an empowering provision,” he argued.

He further submitted that if the legislature had intended to set up such a portal, it would have said so explicitly, as it did while allowing a 24x7 website for notices of suspension or revocation under Section 26 of the Act.

Refuting the Centre’s reliance on certain US decisions, Raghavan said that Reno v. ACLU still holds the field and has not been overruled. “Shreya Singhal is the precedent in India. The interpretation of ‘reasonable restrictions’ under Article 19(2) must be adhered to,” he stated.

Appearing for DIGIPUB, Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi also countered the Centre’s reading of Shreya Singhal, arguing that the case cited multiple judgments and was not built solely on US precedent.

During the hearing, the Solicitor General had earlier used examples such as “fishing” to illustrate the need for quick action. In response, the petitioners contended that vague terms like “unlawful act” cannot be allowed to fill gaps in legislation. “If there is a vacuum, it has to be filled legislatively, not by the executive,” they submitted.

Case Title: X Corp vs UOI

Hearing date: July 29, 2025

Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna