X disputes legality of Sahyog portal in Karnataka High Court appeal

New Delhi: X Corp has told the Karnataka High Court that it received 29,118 government requests to remove content between January and June 2025, and complied with 26,641 of them, a compliance rate of 91.49%.

The company submitted these figures while challenging a single judge’s September 24, ruling, which had observed that the platform intends to defy Indian law. The data formed part of X’s writ appeal against the order upholding the Union government’s Sahyog portal, the online system used for issuing takedown directions to intermediaries.

In its appeal, X Corp argued that government agencies are improperly invoking Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, along with Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 IT Rules, to issue removal orders. The company contended that this creates a parallel mechanism that bypasses Section 69A, the only statutory route for blocking online content in India.

X referred to the Supreme Court’s 2015 judgment in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, which upheld the Section 69A framework and its procedural safeguards.

The platform said Section 79 is a “safe harbour” provision and does not authorise the government to direct content blocking. Despite this, X said an October 31, 2023 MeitY memorandum had allegedly enabled thousands of officials across ministries and state governments to issue blocking directions under Section 79(3)(b) and Rule 3(1)(d), bypassing the stricter Section 69A process.

The company further claimed that the Ministry of Home Affairs, following MeitY’s instructions, created a confidential Sahyog portal to facilitate such takedown orders without statutory backing or transparency. According to the petition, this represents an excessive extension of executive power and enables censorship without due process.

The appeal also cited instances where state police and central ministries allegedly used Rule 3(1)(d) to order the removal of political criticism, news reports, parody and other lawful speech.

X argued that Rule 3(1)(d) lacks the procedural protections mandated under Section 69A, including reasoned orders and the limited grounds permitted under Article 19(2). Allowing content blocking under a less rigorous process, the company said, undermines Article 14 and renders Section 69A ineffective. 

X further argued that the single judge did not fully consider these constitutional issues. A central aspect of X’s challenge is its position that the single judge misinterpreted the Shreya Singhal ruling by suggesting it had been diluted following the introduction of the 2021 IT Rules.

X maintained that the judgment continues to apply because the underlying statutory provisions, Sections 69A and 79, along with the 2009 Blocking Rules, remain unchanged.