Karnataka High Court Rejects X Corp’s Challenge to Central Government’s Sahyog Portal

The Karnataka High Court on September 24, 2025, dismissed a petition filed by X Corp challenging the Centre’s powers to block online content under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The High Court on July 29 had concluded the hearing in the X Corp's plea.

The bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that the provision could not be struck down as unconstitutional and observed that the regulation of content was necessary to safeguard rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Court said unchecked speech, particularly in cases involving women, could have serious consequences, and regulation in such circumstances was a “must".

Reading out the decision in court, Justice Nagaprasanna remarked, “From Orient to the Occident the march of civilization has borne witness to the inescapable truth that information and communication, its spread or its speed, has never been left unchecked and unregulated. It has always been the subject matter of regulation. As and when technology developed, from messengers to the postal age, till the age of WhatsApp, Instagram and Snapchat, all have been regulated by the regulatory regime subsisting then and subsisting today, both globally and locally".

X Corp had argued that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology had enabled central and state agencies to issue blocking orders under Section 79(3)(b) without following the procedure laid down in Section 69A. It contended that the creation of a “Template Blocking Order” and the launch of the Sahyog Portal allowed authorities to bypass procedural safeguards, including the review mechanism mandated by the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal judgment.

Court, however, rejected this challenge. It observed that the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute but always subject to the reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). Referring to comparative law, the judge said: “American jurisprudential edifice or American judicial thought cannot be transplanted into the soil of Indian constitutional thought, this is a clear law enunciated by the apex court right from 1950 till this date. The judicial thought process has undergone a complete change in the realm of free speech even in the United States of America in the aftermath of the judgment in Reno versus American Civil Liberties Union".

On X Corp’s standing to invoke fundamental rights, the court was categorical, “Article 19 of the Constitution of India, noble in its spirit and luminous in its promise, remains nevertheless a charter of rights conferred upon citizens only. The petitioner who seeks sanctuary under its canopy must be a citizen of the nation. Failing which, the protective embrace of Article 19 cannot be invoked".

The company also urged the court to restrain the government from initiating action against it for not complying with the Sahyog Portal mechanism.

The Union government opposed the plea, submitting that intermediaries such as X Corp are obliged to comply with the law of the land. It likened the platform to a “noticeboard” where users post content, and said that the safe harbour protection under Section 79 applies only if the intermediary follows the statutory requirements.

Addressing the challenge to the Sahyog Portal, the court noted: “Sahyog Portal, far from being a constitutional anathema, in its truth is an instrument of public good conceived under the authority of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and Rule 3(d) of the 2021 Rules. It stands as a beacon of cooperation between the citizen and the intermediary".

Dismissing the petition, court refused to hold Section 79(3)(b) ultra vires and upheld the government’s authority to issue such directions.

Case Title: X Corp vs UOI

Hearing date: July 29, 2025

Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna