Indian Court Rejects X’s Plea to Quash Content-Removal Rules — What the Karnataka High Court Ruled and Why It Matters
Summary
On 24 September 2025, the Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition by X Corp (formerly Twitter) seeking to quash India’s revised content-removal regime — including the government’s Sahyog portal for submitting takedown requests. The court held that digital platforms operating in India must comply with domestic law, and that foreign platforms cannot import U.S. free-speech standards to avoid Indian regulation. This decision reinforces the Centre’s authority to direct intermediaries to remove or block content and is likely to shape future litigation and platform behaviour in India.
What the Case Was About
X filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court earlier in 2025 challenging the government’s use of the Sahyog portal and the broader interpretation of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. X argued the portal was effectively a “censorship portal” that allowed government officers to send takedown notices directly to platforms without the procedural safeguards required for formal blocking under Section 69A, raising constitutional and due-process concerns.
The Court’s Key Findings
- No merit in X’s challenge: The court found X’s arguments “without merit” and dismissed the petition, upholding the legality of the government’s content-removal mechanism.
- Domestic law applies: Platforms operating in India must obey Indian law. Foreign platforms cannot rely on U.S. free-speech norms to challenge Indian statutory mechanisms.
- Sahyog is legitimate: The court described the Sahyog portal as a cooperative tool to combat cybercrime and unlawful content, not a censorship instrument.
- Regulation necessary: Social media cannot be left in “anarchic freedom.” Regulation is justified where it ensures public order, safety, and prevention of unlawful speech.
Legal Background (Brief)
Section 79 (IT Act): Provides safe-harbour protections for intermediaries, subject to takedown obligations.
Section 69A (IT Act): Governs blocking public access to information with specific procedural safeguards. X argued the Sahyog portal bypassed these safeguards, but the court disagreed.
Practical Implications
- For X and other platforms: Platforms must comply promptly with Sahyog takedown orders, reducing scope for procedural challenges. (Reuters)
- Litigation path: X may appeal to the Supreme Court of India, so this decision is not final.
- Policy and compliance: Platforms are expected to refine compliance workflows, invest in faster legal reviews, and possibly engage through diplomatic or policy channels.
Broader Context and Debates
- Free speech vs. regulatory power: The ruling reinforces that global platforms must adapt to host-state laws.
- Concerns about overreach: Civil liberties groups warn that unchecked takedown mechanisms may chill free speech and lack accountability.
What to Watch Next
- Supreme Court filing: Whether X appeals, and how the Court treats Article 19 and intermediary liability.
- Operational changes: Platforms may adjust review teams, legal workflows, and transparency reports.
- Policy clarifications: Possible legislation or litigation aimed at strengthening safeguards.
Constitutional and Statutory Architecture: Key Provisions & Precedents
Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(2)
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech to citizens, but Article 19(2) allows reasonable restrictions in the interests of sovereignty, security, and public order. Foreign corporations cannot claim Article 19 rights. (Bar and Bench)
Section 69A — Blocking Orders
Section 69A allows the government to block information with procedural safeguards. The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal upheld its constitutionality. (Wikipedia)
Section 79 — Safe Harbour & Limits
Section 79 provides safe harbour but requires takedown of unlawful content. In Shreya Singhal, the Supreme Court clarified that “actual knowledge” must come from a lawful order, preventing arbitrary takedowns.
The Crux of the Dispute
The core issue is whether the Sahyog portal under Section 79(3)(b) creates
a parallel blocking system bypassing 69A safeguards. X argued it did, while
the government argued it only affects safe harbour status.
|
How the Karnataka High Court Addressed These Issues
- Standing: X cannot invoke Article 19 rights as a foreign company.
- Sahyog’s legitimacy: The court found it lawful under Section 79(3)(b) and Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 Rules.
- Need for regulation: Social media cannot be left unregulated.
- Indian norms prevail: U.S. free speech standards are irrelevant to Indian law.
Constitutional Tensions & Open Questions
Concerns remain about executive overreach, potential conflicts with Shreya Singhal, ambiguity in statutory definitions, and the role of proportionality in regulating platforms. The Supreme Court may need to provide clarity if the case is appealed.
Conclusion
The X v. Union of India case highlights tensions between free speech, intermediary liability, and regulatory legitimacy. The Karnataka High Court upheld government authority, but key constitutional issues remain unresolved. The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling could reshape India’s digital governance landscape.
