The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed X Corp’s challenge to the validity of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which empowers government officers to issue information blocking orders through the Sahyog portal.
Justice Nagaprassana held that X Corp’s plea, which claimed that only Section 69A of the IT Act read with the Blocking Rules could authorise blocking orders, was without merit.
The court observed that free speech in India is governed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, but it remains subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). Crucially, the court noted that:
“Article 19 is a charter of rights conferred upon citizens only. A 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.”
Rejecting X Corp’s reliance on US precedents, Justice Nagaprassana remarked that American judicial thought cannot be transplanted into Indian constitutional soil.
Sahyog Portal Upheld As Public Good
The bench described the Sahyog portal as “an instrument of public good”, designed to strengthen cooperation between intermediaries and the state in tackling cybercrime. It held that the portal, developed under Section 79(3)(b) and Rule 3(b) of the 2021 IT Rules, was constitutional and not a tool of censorship.
The court said assailing its validity was a misunderstanding of its purpose.
X Corp had also sought protection for its employees against coercive action for refusing to join the Sahyog portal and requested that blocking orders be issued only under Section 69A. The company argued that Section 79 could not be an empowering provision since the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal (2015) never recognised it as such.
The High Court, however, distinguished the earlier ruling, noting that the 2011 Rules examined in Shreya Singhal were now “confined to history” and that the 2021 Rules require their own interpretative approach.
The bench further pointed out that X Corp complies with similar takedown regimes in the United States but resists doing so in India.
Centre’s Stand Vindicated
During the hearings, the Union Government argued that unlawful content cannot enjoy the same constitutional protections as free speech, and that safe harbour for intermediaries is conditional upon due diligence.
It also rejected X Corp’s argument about a “chilling effect”, stating that the company cannot invoke constitutional rights on behalf of users.
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
