26-07-2025
Sahyog is ‘wolf in sheep's clothing', X Corp tells Karnataka HC
X Corp on Friday accused the Union government of using the 'innocuously named' Sahyog portal as a 'wolf in sheep's clothing' to issue illegal content blocking orders that bypass statutory safeguards, escalating its legal challenge against what it calls an unconstitutional censorship mechanism. Sahyog is 'wolf in sheep's clothing', X Corp tells Karnataka HC
Appearing before the Karnataka High Court, senior advocate KG Raghavan argued further on the company's core content that the government was misusing Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act and Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 IT Rules to circumvent due process protections upheld by the Supreme Court in the landmark Shreya Singhal case.
'It is innocuously named but it is a wolf in sheep's clothing. We are a responsible business and we will abide by the law of every country we operate in. But the question is what is the correct law?' Raghavan told Justice M Nagaprasanna.
'The same grounds of sovereignty, integrity, public order are used under Section 69A. Then why use Section 79 at all? This amounts to a dangerous circumvention of law,' he argued.
The hearing represented the latest round in X's challenge to the government's directive mandating social media platforms join the Sahyog portal, a centralised system for content takedown requests that the company argues violates constitutional principles.
X's core argument centres on the interpretation of Section 79 of the IT Act, which provides 'safe harbour' protection to intermediaries from legal liability for user-generated content. The platform contends this provision is a protective shield rather than an empowering mechanism for government officials to issue takedown orders.
In detailed written submissions filed on Friday, seen by HT, X introduced a 'preceding order' theory, arguing that intermediaries lose safe harbour protection only when there is a court order, a Section 69A order, or another statute that explicitly authorises blocking. The company argued that 'unlawful act' in Section 79(3)(b) must refer only to those three circumstances.
'It is pertinent to mention that the government adopted this interpretation only recently — 25 years after S.79 was enacted and 16 years after the current version of S.79(3)(b) went into effect,' X stated in its submissions, adding that thousands of officers across central ministries, state agencies and police departments now believe Section 79 gives them authority to direct content blocking.
'If your interpretation of Section 79 is accepted, then any officer in this country can decide what is lawful or not, on a purely subjective basis. This is absurd and shocking. It allows officers to be both accuser and judge,' Raghavan argued in court.
The government has revealed that 38 intermediaries including Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Telegram have joined the portal, with Meta currently testing integration. X remains the most prominent holdout, arguing the system allows thousands of government officials to issue content blocking orders without proper judicial oversight.
Raghavan emphasised that empowering multiple government officials to issue takedown notices based on their discretion erodes the statutory safe harbour protection granted to intermediaries. He maintained that Section 79 should be understood as 'a statutory right, not an exemption granted at the government's discretion.'
'The fear psychosis being created undermines constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 19,' he said, arguing that procedural safeguards under Section 69A remain the only lawful route to block online content.
The arguments built on X's broader constitutional challenge that the government is creating parallel blocking mechanisms that bypass safeguards required under Section 69A, which the Supreme Court upheld in Shreya Singhal provided proper due process protections are followed.
X's written submissions also addressed several government arguments made in earlier hearings. The company rejected claims that internet speech should be subject to greater restrictions than traditional media, noting this argument was 'narrated by them in Shreya Singhal, which was rejected then.' X maintained that 'the right to free speech remains the same across all mediums, and the broader reach of the internet does not justify lowering the threshold for restrictions.'
The platform also disputed the government's contention that the Shreya Singhal precedent is no longer valid because it relied on the US case Reno v. ACLU, which they claim has been questioned in later American rulings. X argued that Shreya Singhal 'remains binding in India under Article 141, no matter the status of Reno in the US,' emphasising that only a larger Supreme Court bench can overturn the precedent.
The platform also cited three US Supreme Court cases to argue that laws like Rule 3(1)(d) and systems like the Sahyog Portal, which 'shift the burden onto people to prove their speech is lawful, violate the First Amendment [of the American constitution].'
The Karnataka High Court will continue hearing the matter on July 29, when senior advocate KG Raghavan is expected to present arguments based on X's comprehensive written submissions filed on Friday.
