World
India
Elon Musk-owned X Corp has moved the Karnataka High Court, contesting the Indian government’s interpretation of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and the implementation of the Sahyog Portal.
The company argues that these mechanisms create an unregulated censorship system that bypasses legal safeguards.
According to X, the government is misapplying Section 79(3)(b) to enforce content takedowns, ignoring the procedures outlined in Section 69A—which the Supreme Court ruled as the only valid legal framework for blocking online content (Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015).
Indian Government Seeks X’s Clarification on AI Chatbot Grok
The legal challenge coincides with the Central government’s inquiry into X’s AI chatbot, Grok. However, during the initial hearing, the government stated that X has not faced any action for refusing to integrate with the Sahyog Portal. The court granted X the right to approach it again if any preemptive action is taken against the company.
This isn’t the first time X has taken legal action against Indian authorities. In 2022, the company challenged takedown orders under Section 69A, citing a lack of transparency and violations of free speech rights.
In its petition, X Corp alleges that the government is using Section 79(3)(b) as a workaround to enforce content removal without following the legal steps mandated under Section 69A.
According to Indian law, Section 69A requires authorities to document reasons for content removal, provide a hearing before enforcement, and allow legal challenges. However, X argues that these critical safeguards are absent in Section 79(3)(b).
Quoting the Shreya Singhal verdict, X highlights that Section 69A was upheld by the Supreme Court due to its procedural safeguards, while Section 79(3)(b) merely refers to an “unlawful act” without detailing how enforcement should be carried out.
Concerns Over Sahyog Portal
A significant grievance raised in X’s petition is the Sahyog Portal, managed by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). The portal allows state police and government departments to issue takedown requests without adhering to due process under Section 69A.
X Corp asserts that this system enables mass censorship by allowing thousands of officials to remove content without transparency, oversight, or statutory procedures.
Social Media Platforms and the CSAM Reporting Mandate
The legal challenge emerges as the Indian government pushes social media platforms to integrate with Sahyog to report CSAM (Child Sexual Abuse Material) directly to local authorities.
A 2024 Supreme Court ruling now mandates platforms to report CSAM cases to Indian law enforcement under the POCSO Act, in addition to the U.S.-based National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC).
This dual reporting requirement has placed U.S.-based tech firms, including X, in a legal dilemma regarding international compliance.
Additionally, the company has opposed the government’s requirement to appoint a “Nodal Officer” to handle directives from Sahyog, arguing that such a demand lacks legal authority.
What X Corp Wants from the Court
X Corp has presented several key arguments in its petition:
Section 79(3)(b) lacks statutory authority: Originally meant as a safe-harbor provision for intermediaries, it was not intended to grant censorship powers to government agencies.
Violation of constitutional rights: The government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) for content takedowns infringes upon Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech & Expression).
Evading legal safeguards: Section 69A mandates procedural protections, such as pre-decisional hearings and written justifications, which are not followed under the current enforcement approach.
X Corp’s Legal Demands
The company has requested the Karnataka High Court to intervene urgently, seeking:
A declaration that Section 79(3)(b) does not grant the government the power to issue content blocking orders.
The invalidation of all takedown orders issued under Section 79(3)(b).
A restriction on enforcement of orders from the Sahyog Portal until a final decision is reached.
Reaffirmation of Section 69A as the sole legal mechanism for online content blocking.
As the legal battle unfolds, the next hearing in the Karnataka High Court is set for March 27. The outcome of this case could significantly impact government regulations on social media platforms in India and redefine the legal boundaries for online censorship.
