Syllabus: GS-II: Government Policies & Intervention

Why in the News?

The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition by social media and tech giant X Corporation challenging the Union government’s ‘Sahyog’ portal – a platform used to issue content takedown orders to internet companies.

More About the News

• X had challenged the legality of Sahyog portal, terming it a “censorship portal” that bypassed procedural safeguards.
• The government defended it as an efficient mechanism to regulate unlawful online content under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
• The verdict upholds government powers to regulate digital content, while clarifying the limitations of foreign corporations in invoking constitutional protections like Article 19.
• The judgment will have major implications for all internet intermediaries operating in India.

About the High Court Judgment

• The High Court ruled that:
  
  • Social media content “needs to be regulated” and cannot be left in a “state of anarchic freedom”
  • Regulation is essential, particularly in cases involving cybercrime and offences against women.
  • The Sahyog Portal is an instrument of public good under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act.
  • X Corp, as a foreign company, cannot invoke Article 19 rights which apply only to Indian citizens.
• The court also criticised X for complying with US takedown laws (like the US Take It Down Act) but refusing similar compliance in India.
• It rejected reliance on Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015), noting that case dealt with 2011 IT Rules, while the current matter must be seen under 2021 Rules.

About the Sahyog Portal

• Launched: October 2024 by the Union Home Ministry.
• Maintained by: Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C).
• Purpose: Centralised platform for issuing takedown notices to internet intermediaries under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act.
• Function: Provides “actual knowledge” to intermediaries (social media platforms, ISPs, web hosts) about unlawful content, compelling them to act or risk losing safe harbour protection.
  • Under Section 79, online intermediaries are granted “safe harbour” protection, which gives them legal immunity from liability for content generated by their users.
• Usage:
  • By April 2025, 65 intermediaries and nodal officers from all states/UTs were onboarded.
  • Between Oct 2024–Apr 2025, 130 takedown notices were issued through Sahyog to companies like Google, YouTube, Amazon, and Microsoft.

The Current Issue: Sahyog vs X Corp

• X’s arguments:
  • Sahyog bypasses the stricter safeguards of Section 69A (which requires committees, written orders, hearings, and is limited to national security/public order grounds).
    • Under the IT Act, Section 69A allows content blocking only on limited grounds like national security and public order. 
  • In contrast, Section 79(3)(b) covers any “unlawful” content — a broader, undefined term.
  • The government was using Section 79(3)(b) through the portal to circumvent the stricter, more transparent procedure for blocking content laid down in Section 69A.
  • While only the Centre could issue orders under Section 69A, state governments and other agencies were issuing takedown notices through the portal.
  • Violates Shreya Singhal (2015), which required court/government orders for takedowns.

Centre’s Stand

• Safe harbour is not a right, but a conditional privilege. Intermediaries must remove unlawful content expeditiously when notified.
• Section 79(3)(b) and Section 69A are separate:
  • 69A = blocking orders (limited grounds, formal process).
  • 79(3)(b) = intermediary liability (broader scope).
• Sahyog is not censorship, but a technical facilitation mechanism for lawful notices.
• Questioned X’s standing: Article 19 rights do not extend to foreign corporations.
• Pointed out X was the only intermediary not cooperating with Sahyog.
  

About the Information Technology Act, 2000

• Section 69A: Government can block content in the interest of sovereignty, security, public order, etc. Requires due process (committee, hearing, written orders).
• Section 79 (Safe Harbour):
  • Protects intermediaries from liability for user-generated content.
  • Conditional: protection is lost if intermediaries fail to act on unlawful content after receiving “actual knowledge”.
  • Section 79(3)(b) is the legal basis for Sahyog notices.
• Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015):
  • Struck down Section 66A (overbroad criminalisation of online speech).
  • Clarified that intermediaries can only act on unlawful content if ordered by a court or government.

Way Forward

• Clearer Definitions of “Unlawful Content”: Prevent overreach by specifying categories (e.g., child pornography, hate speech, cyber fraud) to avoid vague censorship.
• Independent Oversight Mechanism: Introduce an appellate body or ombudsman for review of Sahyog notices, similar to the erstwhile Film Certification Appellate Tribunal model.
• Transparency Reports: Mandate publication of number, type, and grounds of takedown notices issued through Sahyog.
• Protect Press Freedom: Ensure content removal orders don’t arbitrarily target journalism or dissent.
• Balance Sovereignty and Business Confidence: India must maintain regulatory authority without deterring global platforms and investments.
  

Conclusion

The Karnataka High Court’s verdict marks a pivotal moment in India’s digital governance framework. By upholding Sahyog, the court reinforced the principle that digital liberty must be balanced with responsibility and regulation. However, concerns about transparency, procedural safeguards, and overbroad powers remain unresolved. For India to maintain its global digital leadership while safeguarding democracy, it must ensure that platforms like Sahyog are legally sound, narrowly tailored, and accountable.

Mains Question (250 words, 15 marks)

“The Karnataka High Court’s upholding of the Sahyog Portal under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act reflects the tension between state regulation and free expression in the digital sphere. Critically examine the implications of this verdict for intermediary liability, safe harbour protections, and digital rights in India.”

The Indian Express