'Govt Doesn't Order Takedown, Just Flags Illegal Content': SG Tells Karnataka HC in X Corp's Plea
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday continued its hearing of X Corp’s writ petition challenging the Union Government’s use of the ‘Sahyog’ portal to issue content takedown orders under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act.
Before the bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta 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 emphasized that such notifications are intended to protect ordinary users from online fraud, phishing scams, fake booking websites, and deceptive financial schemes.
The Solicitor General defended the system of ‘Sahyog’ portal before the court, calling the issue one of national importance affecting all intermediaries, not just X (formerly Twitter).
SG Mehta emphasized India’s vast digital landscape, with 90 crore internet users and rapid growth, and argued that many intermediaries misuse online platforms in ways that go beyond the scope of Article 19 protections. He described the internet as a “potent weapon,” and criticized social media business models for commodifying human attention under the guise of promoting engagement.
Citing recent cooperation from Google in removing fake Somnath Temple and Kumbh Mela booking websites, Mehta said such interventions are not about curbing free speech but preventing digital harm. “Freedom of speech doesn’t arise in such frauds,” he said, asserting that most intermediaries are business entities, and the government is obliged to ensure digital safety for citizens.
The SG warned of the dangers of unregulated content and technology, citing examples of AI-generated fake videos, smart TVs and smartphones acting as surveillance devices, and individuals being profiled through their digital behavior. He remarked that artificial intelligence poses new threats that existing laws are ill-equipped to address, such as the potential misuse of deepfakes involving public officials.
Referring to global examples, Mehta cited the 2024 Moody v. NetChoice decision from the U.S. Supreme Court and the upholding of TikTok’s ban in the U.S., but maintained that Indian free speech jurisprudence is different.
"Burning the national flag may be a right in the U.S., but in India, it is sacrilege,” he stated, underscoring the need to interpret Article 19(2) in light of local values and public order.
He further submitted that the Shreya Singhal judgment, which struck down Section 66A, must be viewed in its historical context.
According to him, X Corp cannot invoke Article 19(1)(a) rights as it is merely an intermediary, comparable to a notice board, and only users posting content can claim free speech protections.
SG Tushar Mehta stressed by reiterating that Section 79 of the IT Act, which provides conditional safe harbour protection to intermediaries, has already been upheld by the Supreme Court. But, he added, that safe harbour is not an inherent right but an exception to liability, and any challenge to the IT Rules must demonstrate direct curtailment of speech, which X Corp cannot claim.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who is hearing the matter, engaged with these submissions, noting that algorithms designed by platforms amplify user content, thereby raising questions about intermediary neutrality. The hearing will resume after lunch depending on the SG’s availability.
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.
X Corp had clarified that it does not oppose regulation but seeks fair and consistent procedures, contrasting the judicial oversight required under Section 501 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for print media with the unchecked executive discretion under Section 79(3)(b).
The Digipub News India Foundation, representing 92 digital media organizations, has also intervened in support of X Corp, asserting that the government’s takedown regime threatens responsible journalism.
Senior Advocate Dr. Aditya Sondhi, representing Digipub, on July 11, had argued that the absence of natural justice mechanisms, such as post-decision hearings, violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. The foundation had emphasized that media houses are left vulnerable to arbitrary orders issued by individual officers, creating a chilling effect on free speech.
However, the Union Government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, had defended the Sahyog portal as a coordination tool rather than a censorship mechanism, arguing that X Corp seeks special treatment by resisting compliance with India’s regulatory framework, which other intermediaries have accepted. SG Mehta also contested X Corp’s locus to challenge takedown orders on behalf of users, asserting that intermediaries cannot evade legitimate obligations.
Case Title: X Corp vs UOI