No Social Media Platform Can Treat Indian Marketplace As A Mere Playground: Karnataka High Court Rejects X Corp’s Plea Against ‘Sahyog Portal’

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by X Corp. (erstwhile Twitter), challenging the constitutional validity of the Central Government’s Censorship Portal i.e., Sahyog Portal.

Sahyog Portal is a platform for sending notices to intermediaries by the Government or its agency under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) to remove or disable unlawful online information.

A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna remarked, “No social media platform, in the modern-day agora, may even feign the semblance of exemption from the rigour and discipline of the laws of this land. None may presume to treat the Indian marketplace as a mere playground, where information may be disseminated in defiance of statutes, or in disregard of legality, while adopting a posture of detachment.”

The Bench said that social media, as the modern amphitheater of ideas, cannot be left in a state of anarchic freedom.

Senior Advocate K.G. Raghavan appeared on behalf of the Petitioner while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared on behalf of the Respondents. Additional Solicitor General (ASG) K. Arvind Kamath and Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi appeared on behalf of the Intervening Applicants.

Historical Background

The provisions of the IT Act and blocking orders issued to the intermediary became the subject matter of a challenge before the Supreme Court in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015). The Apex Court had held that Section 66A is unconstitutional and Section 69A is constitutional, and Section 79 was read down. Thereafter, there was a change in the Rules. New Rules were promulgated by the Union of India viz., the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

Facts of the Case

The Writ Petition by X Corp. sought a writ declaring that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act does not confer authority to issue information blocking orders and further sought to declare that information blocking orders can only be issued under Section 69A of the IT Act read with Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (Blocking Rules). It also prayed for a declaration that Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 is ultra vires the IT Act or unconstitutional.

In the alternative, it sought a prayer to read down Rule 3(1)(d) by declaring that Rule 3(1)(d) does not independently authorize the Respondents to issue information blocking orders. Moreover, it sought a declaration that Sahyog Portal is ultra vires the IT Act and thereby unconstitutional. The take down notices led to the Petitioner approaching the High Court, seeking appropriate prayers.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in view of the above facts, observed, “In the ever-evolving landscape of technology and communication, the law is constantly tested against new frontiers of information exchange. What once began with postal riders and the printing press, has through centuries of innovation, culminated in the boundless digital world of today. At the heart of this transformation lies the tension, as old as the governance itself. The balance between liberty and regulation, between freedom to speak and authority to restrain, is what this Court is called upon to answer in its sharpest form.”

The Court said that the present Petition does not merely pit a Corporation against the State, it raises questions that go to the very heart of our Constitutional democracy in this digital age.

“The internet, once a novelty, the great amplifier of voices, has become an echo chamber of discord, as misinformation, incitement and instability has found unbridled passage. The law, therefore, must walk a delicate tight rope. The liberty and restraint must go hand in hand between innovation and regulation, stance the present writ petition”, it emphasised.

The Court noted that every nation has grappled in its own way with the challenges posed by this new medium and each State has thought it fit to erect a regulatory framework befitting its circumstances.

“I, therefore, answer the issue holding that development of information and communication, from time to time, nation to nation, have always been regulated through regulatory frameworks”, it held.

The Court remarked that from the press of the colonial era, to the digital platforms today, there has always existed a framework of law to temper liberty with responsibility, freedom with accountability.

“I thus, answer the second issue, holding that regulatory regimes subsisted, are subsisting both locally and globally. There is no nation that has left flow of information, wholly unregulated”, it further held.

The Court was of the view that free speech, as obtaining under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution cannot be unbridled, uncanalized and a free fall, it is hedged, regulated and restricted by reasonable restrictions as found in Article 19(2).

“… wholesale importation of American doctrines, particularly in the realm of free speech, cannot be the touchstone for interpreting the provisions of the Indian Constitution”, it said.

The Court also noted that the algorithms may be new order of the day, but the Constitutional demand is old and power, whether human or digital, must remain accountable.

“The reality stands stark; social media has not been free from abuse. Like the two faces of a single coin, use and misuse revolve together. When the wheel of use turns, so too does the wheel of misuse. If misuse is unchecked will wreak untold havoc particularly upon women, who too often become its most vulnerable targets. A single post, once marred by derogatory commentary, may in its very utterance transgress the boundaries of law of the day and can such affronts be left unregulated? Surely not”, it said.

Furthermore, the Court emphasised that Regulation is not a matter of choice, but a solemn necessity and, therefore, regulating the social media is a must.

“The State, therefore, carries the solemn obligation to align its regulatory frameworks to the aforesaid menace, ensuring that digital spaces do not become lawless territory where women’s rights are trampled with impunity, albeit, inter alia”, it added.

The Court said that in the guise of free speech, menace cannot be allowed to fester and allowed to spread.

“If the petitioner does abide to pervasive force of the TAKE IT DOWN Act in the United States of America, why then before this Court a plea is projected bordering on denial of compliance. Law cannot be honoured in one jurisdiction and flouted in another”, it asked.

Summary of Findings

The Court, therefore, summarised the following points –

(1) From orient to the occident, the march of civilization borne witness to the inescapable truth that information and communication, its spread or its speed has never been left unchecked and unregulated. It has always been subject to regulation.

(2) As and when technology developed right from the messengers to the postal age, till the age of Apps Whastapp, Instagram and Snapchat, all have been regulated by regulatory regimes subsisting then and subsisting today both globally and locally.

(3) Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, right to free speech and expression is hedged by restrictions under Article 19(2) and is always subject to those reasonable restrictions.

(4) The American jurisprudential edifice or American judicial thought cannot be transplanted into the soil of Indian Constitutional thought, is the clear law enunciated by the Apex Court right from 1950, till this day.

(5) The judicial thought process has undergone a complete change, in the realm of free speech, even in the United States of America, in the aftermath of the judgment in the case of Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union.

(6) Article 19 of the Constitution of India, noble in its spirit and luminous in its promise, remains nevertheless a charter of rights confered upon citizens only. The Petitioner who seeks sanctuary under its canopy, must be a citizen of the nation failing which the protective embrace of Article 19 cannot be invoked.

(7) The Sahyog Portal, far from being a constitutional anathema, is in truth an instrument of public good. Conceived under the authority of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 Rules, it stands as a beacon of cooperation between citizen and intermediary, a mechanism through which the State endeavours to combat the growing menace of cybercrime. To assail its validity is to misunderstand its purpose; hence, the challenge is without merit. (8) The judgment in Shreya Singhal, predicated inter alia upon the reasoning in Reno V. ACLU, cannot by judicial alchemy be transposed to the present controversy.

(9) Social media, as the modern amphitheater of ideas, cannot be left in a state of anarchic freedom. Regulation of information in this domain is neither novel nor unique; the United States regulates it, every sovereign nation regulates it, and India’s resolve to do likewise cannot, by any stretch of constitutional imagination, be branded unlawful. Unregulated speech, under the guise of liberty, becomes a licence for lawlessness. Regulated speech, by contrast, preserves both liberty and order, the twin pillars upon which any democracy must stand.

(10) No social media platform, in the modern-day agora, may even feign the semblance of exemption from the rigour and discipline of the laws of this land. None may presume to treat the Indian marketplace as a mere playground, where information may be disseminated in defiance of statutes, or in disregard of legality, while adopting a posture of detachment.

(11) The content on social media, needs to be regulated and its regulation is a must, more so, in the cases of offences against women in particular, failing which, the right to dignity of a citizen is railroaded.

(12) We are a society governed by laws; order is the architecture of our democracy. Every platform that seeks to operate within jurisdiction of our nation, which they do, must accept that liberty is yoked to responsibility, and that the privilege of access carries with it the solemn duty of accountability. To hold otherwise is to imperil both the rule of law and the fabric of social harmony.

(13) The Petitioner’s platform is subject to regulatory regime in the United States of America, its birthplace and foot-land under the TAKE IT DOWN Act, 2025. It chooses to follow the said Act, as it criminalizes the violation of orders of a take down, but the same petitioner refuses to follow in the shores of this nation of similar take down orders which are founded upon illegality, this is sans countenance.

Conclusion

The Court observed that the law must walk a tight rope between perils of unregulated expression and dangers of unrestrained censorship and in that delicate balance, rests the health of Constitutional democracy.

“The questions raised here were not merely about statutory interpretation, but about the preservation of democratic discourse in the digital public square. The Constitution does not permit unfettered public speaking, in the garb of freedom of speech and expression. Though liberty cannot be eroded by the expedience of executive action, Constitution cannot be permitted to be corroded. The Regulated - the petitioner and the like, is asking the Regulator – the Government of India, to be Regulated at the hands of this Court. This is sans countenance”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court rejected the Petition.

Cause Title- X Corp. v. Union of India & Ors. [Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.7405 OF 2025 (GM - RES)]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Senior Advocate K.G. Raghavan and Advocate Manu P. Kulkarni.

Respondents: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, CGSPC M.N. Kumar, Advocates Kanu Agrawal, Gaurang Bhushan, and Aman Mehta.

Intervening Applicants: ASG K. Arvind Kamath, Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, Advocates Apar Gupta, Malavika Prasad, Spoorthi Cotha, A.S. Vishwajith, and Naibedya.

Click here to read/download the Judgment