Social media platform ‘X’ on Monday announced plans to challenge the Karnataka High Court’s recent order that dismissed its plea against mandatory onboarding on the government’s Sahyog portal.
The Global Government Affairs team of X expressed concern, stating that the ruling undermines freedom of speech and contradicts constitutional protections.
In a statement shared, the team wrote, “X is deeply concerned by the recent order from the Karnataka court in India, which will allow millions of police officers to issue arbitrary takedown orders through a secretive online portal called the Sahyog. This new regime has no basis in the law, circumvents Section 69A of the IT Act, violates Supreme Court rulings, and infringes Indian citizens’ constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression.”
Concerns Over Arbitrary Takedowns
According to X, the Sahyog portal empowers police officers to demand content removal solely on the basis of alleged “illegality,” without judicial oversight or due process. The platform argued that such unchecked powers not only silence speakers but also expose intermediaries to criminal liability for non-compliance.
“The Sahyog enables officers to order content removal based solely on allegations of ‘illegality,’ without judicial review or due process for the speakers, and threatens platforms with criminal liability for non-compliance,” the company stated.
Clash With Other Judicial Rulings
X further criticized the order as inconsistent with a recent Bombay High Court ruling that struck down a similar regulatory mechanism as unconstitutional. The platform underscored that it complies with Indian law but stressed that its constitutional concerns had been overlooked.
“We respectfully disagree with the view that we have no right to raise these concerns because of our incorporation abroad — X contributes significantly to public discourse in India, and the voice of our users is at the heart of our platform. We will appeal this order to defend free expression,” the Global Government Affairs team added.
Court’s Stand
The order was delivered on September 24 by a bench led by Justice Nagaprasanna, who rejected X’s plea seeking clarity that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act does not authorize the Centre to issue blocking orders.
In his ruling, Justice Nagaprasanna emphasized the need for regulation of online platforms, observing that:
“Social media must be regulated. Unregulated speech under the guise of liberty results in lawlessness.”
The court further noted that while Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech, it is not absolute and remains subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2).
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
