CourtKutchehry

Karnataka High Court Dismisses X Corp’s Challenge to Government Takedown Orders

Court Says Social Media Must Follow Indian Laws and Cannot Claim Unlimited Freedom

Centre’s Sahyog Portal for Content Removal Upheld as Legal and Necessary

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi: September 25, 2025: In a landmark decision that could reshape how social media platforms operate in India, the Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by X Corp (formerly Twitter) challenging the Indian government’s authority to issue content takedown orders through its Sahyog portal. The court ruled that social media platforms must comply with Indian laws and cannot claim immunity from regulation.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who delivered the judgment, emphasized that regulation of social media is “the need of the hour” and that platforms like X cannot operate in a state of “anarchic freedom.” The court also clarified that constitutional protections under Article 19, which guarantee freedom of speech, apply only to Indian citizens—not foreign companies.

What Was the Case About?

X Corp had approached the Karnataka High Court earlier this year, arguing that the Centre’s Sahyog portal lacked legal backing and was being used to issue arbitrary and illegal takedown orders. The company claimed that the portal bypassed the safeguards laid out under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, which governs content blocking in India.

Senior advocate K.G. Raghavan, representing X Corp, argued that the Sahyog portal allowed government officials to issue takedown notices without proper oversight, leading to “indiscriminate censorship.” He said that only Section 69A, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the landmark Shreya Singhal vs Union of India case, provides a structured and legally supervised process for blocking content.

Centre Defends Sahyog Portal

The Union government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, strongly defended the Sahyog portal. He argued that X Corp’s refusal to cooperate was a “deliberate act” that undermined efforts to maintain public order and national security. Mehta warned that non-compliance could lead to the loss of “safe harbour” protection for X Corp under the IT Act, exposing it to prosecution.

The government clarified that the Sahyog portal does not replace Section 69A but complements it. It facilitates communication between authorities and social media platforms under Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, which require intermediaries to exercise due diligence.

Court’s Observations: Indian Laws Must Be Followed

Justice Nagaprasanna made several key observations in his ruling:

Social media platforms must be regulated, especially in cases involving crimes against women.
The right to dignity, as guaranteed by the Constitution, must not be compromised by unchecked online content.
X Corp follows takedown orders in the United States, where violations attract criminal penalties, but refuses to do so in India.
The court rejected the idea that American legal standards could be applied to India’s constitutional framework.

“The protective embrace of Article 19 cannot be invoked by those who are not citizens,” the court said, adding that “Indian marketplaces cannot be treated as a playground” by foreign entities.

Implications for Social Media Platforms

This ruling has major implications for all social media intermediaries operating in India. It reinforces the government’s authority to regulate online content and sets a precedent for future legal challenges.

Platforms like X, Meta (Facebook and Instagram), and YouTube may now face stricter scrutiny and be required to comply more closely with Indian laws. Failure to do so could result in penalties, loss of legal protections, or even bans.

Legal experts say the judgment strengthens the Centre’s position and could lead to more structured enforcement of content moderation rules.

A Shift in India’s Digital Governance

India has been tightening its grip on digital platforms in recent years. The 2021 IT Rules introduced new obligations for intermediaries, including grievance redressal mechanisms, traceability of messages, and faster response to takedown requests.

The Sahyog portal was launched to streamline this process, allowing various government departments to issue takedown orders efficiently. However, critics argue that it lacks transparency and could be misused for political censorship.

The Karnataka High Court’s ruling now gives legal backing to the portal, making it a key tool in India’s digital governance framework.

X Corp Likely to Appeal

Following the judgment, X Corp is expected to appeal the decision in the Supreme Court. The company has not issued an official statement yet, but sources suggest that it will continue to challenge what it sees as overreach by the Indian government.

This case could become a test of how far India can go in regulating foreign tech companies, especially those that play a major role in shaping public discourse.

Expert Reactions

Legal experts and digital rights activists have offered mixed reactions:

Supporters of regulation say the judgment is necessary to protect citizens from harmful content and ensure accountability.
Critics warn that it could lead to excessive censorship and stifle free speech online.

Prateek Waghre, policy director at Internet Freedom Foundation, said, “While regulation is important, it must be balanced with transparency and due process. The Sahyog portal needs more clarity on how decisions are made.”

Conclusion: A Turning Point for Online Freedom in India

The Karnataka High Court’s decision marks a turning point in India’s approach to regulating social media. By upholding the Centre’s authority and emphasizing the need for oversight, the court has sent a clear message: digital platforms must respect Indian laws and cannot operate without accountability.

As X Corp prepares to take the fight to the Supreme Court, the outcome could shape the future of online freedom, government control, and corporate responsibility in India’s fast-evolving digital landscape.

Karnataka HC Rejects X Corp’s Plea Against Govt Takedown Orders