Latest news with #XCorp
Hindustan Times
13 hours ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Sahyog backdoor to evade legal process, X tells K'taka HC
X Corp on Tuesday accused the Union government of forcing social media platforms to make commercial decisions on content removal rather than following legal due process, as it concluded arguments in its challenge to the controversial Sahyog portal. Sahyog backdoor to evade legal process, X tells K'taka HC Senior advocate KG Raghavan told the Karnataka High Court that the portal effectively shifts the burden from legal authorities to platforms themselves, creating an improper business dilemma for intermediaries. 'The intermediary, which earns out of this business, is required to take a business decision whether to accede to the request of the litigant, whose right is taken away, under Section 79,' Raghavan told Justice M Nagaprasanna. Raghavan argued that intermediaries face a stark choice under the current system — either comply with takedown requests or refuse and risk losing safe harbour protection that shields them from liability for user content. This commercial pressure, he contended, bypasses the legally mandated due process framework. 'However, this directly contradicts Shreya Singhal. One of the reasons why the Supreme Court said section 69A is good is because the application of one's mind is not there,' he said, referring to the 2015 landmark judgment that established procedural safeguards for content blocking. The Sahyog portal, developed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, sends real-time takedown notices to digital platforms and has become the central battleground in X's legal challenge. The government has revealed that 38 intermediaries including Google, Microsoft, Amazon and Telegram have joined the portal, while X remains the most prominent holdout. Raghavan reiterated that the portal operates solely under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, which he argued cannot be used as a source of blocking powers. He maintained that only Section 69A, as upheld in Shreya Singhal, authorises content blocking under a 'legally supervised framework' with specific procedures and safeguards. The senior advocate argued that Sahyog was being used as a 'backdoor to evade the legally mandated process' for blocking content, which includes requirements for providing reasons and opportunities to be heard before content is removed. 'The Sahyog portal lacks statutory backing and there is no legal or independent body reviewing and authorising the takedown orders. It is happening entirely through an executive mechanism, which undermines checks and balances,' Raghavan said. Senior advocate Aditya Sondhi, appearing for digital media collective DIGIPUB as an intervening party, supported X's position by emphasising that the Supreme Court's Shreya Singhal judgment remained binding precedent. The arguments came as X concluded its challenge to the government's directive mandating social media platforms join the Sahyog portal. The case, filed in March, argues that the government is creating unconstitutional parallel blocking mechanisms that bypass established legal safeguards. The government has consistently opposed X's petition, with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta previously telling the court that the platform complies with takedown laws globally but seeks 'special treatment' in India. Mehta had warned that X's refusal to join the portal could attract legal consequences, including loss of safe harbour protection and prosecution under the IT Act. The Karnataka High Court has now closed all arguments and reserved its judgment on X's petition.
Indian Express
13 hours ago
- Business
- Indian Express
There is no legislation behind the creation of Sahyog portal, X argues in Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday reserved its judgment on X Corp's challenge to central takedown orders issued for social media platforms under the Information Technology Act's section 79 (3) (b). In its closing arguments, X said there was no legal backing to the creation of the Sahyog portal, which it has called a 'censorship portal'. The Digipub News India Foundation, a non-profit organisation formed by digital news outlets, also made submissions before the single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, which has been hearing the case. X has been arguing before the court that takedown orders against social media posts should be issued under Information Technology Act section 69A, and not section 79 (3) (b), stating that the latter section, along with certain rules, allows too much leeway for government officials to strip the 'safe harbour' provisions without a judicial process. 'Safe harbour' provisions protect intermediaries like X Corp from liability for content posted on their platforms by users. Objections have also been raised to the Sahyog portal, which the government has referred to as a way to 'automate the process of sending notices to intermediaries' but which X Corp has called a 'censorship portal'. The Centre has also argued that X is the only such intermediary not to join the portal. Making the last submissions for X in the case before the court, senior advocate K G Raghavan stated, 'Sahyog has no statutory backing and if there was a statutory backing, the law would have provided for it… upon consideration of the structure of the IT Act, it does not appear so.' He argued that section 26(2) of the IT Act indicated the circumstances in which such a website would be created, which was not found in the subsections of section 79 of the IT Act. He had also raised the possibility of conflict between the existing provisions, stating, 'Let us take a situation where one officer says 'I will use 79 (3) (b)'. Another officer says 'no, I should go under 69(A)' and all the procedure takes place – and the authority comes to the conclusion that it is not something we want to block… Direct conflict. This is exactly what should be prevented. 69(A) can be overridden by an officer sitting in any remote corner of the country.' Arguing on behalf of Digipub, senior advocate Aditya Sondhi stated, 'Even a subtle effort by the State….the right of a media house to hold land etc have all been found to be indirect methods of scuttling esteemed Solicitor General had placed some extreme examples of phishing, deepfakes etc to drive home the need for this sort of regulation. Extreme examples can make bad law.' He added, 'We need to deal with these, it cannot be disputed. But the use of the phrase 'unlawful act' in the rules being as vague…it is bereft of definition. If there is a need to fill a vacuum, it needs to be done legislatively and not in a roundabout manner.' The court subsequently reserved its judgment in the matter.
Hindustan Times
4 days ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
X says Sahyog portal a ‘wolf in sheep's clothing' before 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. X says Sahyog portal a 'wolf in sheep's clothing' before 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. '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. 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. Friday's hearing follow one from last week dramatic moments when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta created a fake X account named 'Supreme Court of Karnataka' to demonstrate misinformation risks, only to have the platform suspend the fictional handle during the hearing itself. The government has also challenged X's legal standing to bring the case, arguing that as a foreign company not incorporated in India, it cannot claim constitutional protections under Articles 14, 19, and 21. Mehta had previously warned that any resistance to takedown orders could result in X losing its immunity from legal consequences under Indian law, including withdrawal of safe harbour protection that shields it from liability for user content. The Karnataka High Court will continue hearing the matter on July 29.
Hindustan Times
5 days ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
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.
Indian Express
5 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Sahyog Portal is wolf in sheep's clothing: X Corp before Karnataka HC
X Corp Friday compared the Sahyog Portal to a 'wolf in sheep's clothing' during a hearing before the Karnataka High Court regarding its plea against takedown orders. X has been arguing in the high court that takedown orders should be issued under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, and not 79 (3) (b) of the same Act. It has also objected to the Sahyog Portal for intermediaries, referring to it in an earlier hearing as a 'censorship portal'. Senior Advocate K G Raghavan Friday began X's rejoinder to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's representation on the Union Government's perspective. Mehta had concluded his representation in the previous hearing. Commencing his arguments before the High Court, Raghavan stated, 'It (Sahyog) is very innocuously termed, but it is… a wolf in a sheep's garment. There is no dispute that the government can communicate with intermediaries that something may be unlawful… Of course, we will operate within the laws of India. The issue is simply when such a communication results in a loss of safe harbour.' ('Safe harbour' protections shield intermediaries like X from liability regarding content posted on their portals.) Raghavan added, 'Having given me statutory protection, can you take it away in a manner not known to law?' He also raised concerns about government officials deciding on legality in the context of Section 79 (3) (b) of the IT Act, arguing, 'An officer sitting in any remote corner of the country may tell you… you will lose your safe harbour… A court order issued by a court of law such as in the nature of interim injunction does not depend on 79 (3) b to be issued.' Contrary to previous arguments by the Centre, Raghavan argued that safe harbour is a matter of right rather than an exemption. He later stated, 'We have 980 central statutes, something like 7,500 plus state statutes… an authority can say under any one of these I come to the conclusion that you have done an unlawful act. On my saying so, you lose safe harbour protections… It is unfathomable that these officers will form a conclusion, become judges to say that my action is unlawful or not. What happens to all the authorities under those laws to administer them? They will become redundant.' The matter is set to be heard next on July 29.
