X Corp Appeals Karnataka High Court Ruling Upholding Centre’s Content-Blocking Sahyog Portal

X Corp has filed a writ appeal before the Karnataka High Court, challenging a single judge’s ruling that affirmed the Union Government’s authority to issue content-blocking directions through the Sahyog portal. The appeal seeks to overturn the September 2025 judgement, which dismissed X Corp’s original plea and upheld the use of the centralised platform designed to automate notices to intermediaries for the removal of unlawful online content.

The core of the legal dispute lies in the interpretation of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, specifically the interplay between Section 69A and Section 79(3)(b). X Corp contends that mandatory blocking orders can only be issued through the detailed due-process framework prescribed under Section 69A and its

accompanying 2009 Blocking Rules. This framework mandates safeguards such as written reasons, notice to the affected party, and review by a government committee—procedures designed to prevent arbitrary censorship and upheld by the Supreme Court in the landmark Shreya Singhal case.

X Corp argues that the Sahyog portal creates an impermissible “parallel censorship mechanism” by allowing various central and state authorities, including police officers, to issue content takedown notices under the much broader provisions of Section 79(3)(b) and Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 IT Rules. The platform maintains that this circumventing of the Section 69A process removes the necessary procedural discipline and judicial oversight, empowering “millions of officers” to demand arbitrary takedowns based merely on allegations of “illegality”.

The single-judge bench, however, emphatically rejected this argument in its September ruling. Justice M Nagaprasanna held that the Sahyog portal was not an instrument of censorship but a mere facilitation mechanism intended as an instrument of “public good” to streamline cooperation in tackling cybercrime. The court defended the need for regulatory oversight, asserting that social media as a modern public arena cannot be left in a state of “anarchic freedom” and that speech must be tempered by reasonable restrictions.

Furthermore, the single-judge bench noted that X Corp, being a foreign company, could not invoke the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, a view X Corp respectfully disagreed with in its subsequent statement.

By filing the writ appeal, X Corp is urging a division bench of the High Court to revisit these key constitutional and legal questions: the constitutional standing of foreign corporations, the scope of intermediary liability, and the permissible limits of government power in regulating online content via automated means. The outcome of this appeal will be critical in defining the future of digital governance and free expression rights for all intermediaries operating in the Indian digital space.