When India’s Karnataka High Court recently ruled that the government’s Sahyog portal—designed to let police agencies issue content takedown orders directly to social media platforms—was lawful, X (formerly Twitter) swiftly announced it would challenge the decision. X argues the system permits “arbitrary” removals without due process, bypasses safeguards under Section 69A of the IT Act, and undermines constitutional rights to free expression. The court, meanwhile, rejected X’s free speech claims on the basis that as a foreign company it doesn’t enjoy the same protections under Indian law, and described Sahyog not as a censorship tool but a facilitative mechanism of public good. As X prepares its appeal, tensions between global platforms and India’s evolving online governance regime are poised to intensify.
Key Takeaways
– India’s Karnataka High Court upheld the Sahyog portal’s legality, dismissing X’s challenge and characterizing the system as a cooperative mechanism rather than censorship.
– X will appeal, maintaining that Sahyog enables content takedown orders without judicial oversight, undermining procedural safeguards in Section 69A of the IT Act.
– The court held that foreign platforms like X are not entitled to Indian constitutional free speech protections, signaling limits on applying international free expression norms in India.
In-Depth
India’s digital regulation landscape has entered a contentious phase with the Karnataka High Court’s recent decision to uphold the Sahyog portal—a government-run system that enables law enforcement agencies to send takedown orders directly to social media platforms. X (formerly Twitter) had challenged the system on grounds that it permits “arbitrary” removals, violates procedural safeguards, circumvents legal checks, and threatens free expression. But the court rejected most of those arguments, ruling that X as a foreign entity lacks the constitutional protection of free speech in India, and that the portal is legally defensible as a facilitative tool rather than a censorship instrument.
Launched in late 2024, Sahyog acts as a centralized conduit through which authorized government agencies, including the police, issue content removal requests to platforms. The system was meant to reduce delays, duplication, and confusion in how removal orders are communicated and enforced. Under Sahyog, claims of illegality can prompt takedowns without prior judicial review or written orders in every instance—something X says oversteps constitutional bounds. X contended that the portal violates precedents set by Supreme Court decisions and established norms under Section 69A of the IT Act, which demands formal orders, review processes, and safeguards.
In defending Sahyog, the Karnataka bench described it not as an instrument of censorship but as a mechanism for “cooperation” between intermediaries and state agencies. The court emphasized that power to give binding blocking orders still resides under Section 69A and the rules accompanying it, and that Sahyog simply streamlines administrative communication rather than creating a parallel legal regime. The court also dismissed X’s reliance on past decisions like Shreya Singhal (which preserved certain safeguards for online intermediaries), noting that the current regulatory regime and IT Rules differ from those earlier frameworks.
While X has announced its intention to appeal, this ruling sets a fraught precedent. India is making clear that global platforms must submit to local legal doctrine—even when it conflicts with the free speech frameworks they may favor abroad. The appeal process could stretch into months or years, but for now, the message is emphatic: even powerful tech platforms can be constrained by domestic legal interpretations, and India is asserting its digital sovereignty firmly.