Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (September 24) dismissed X Corp's plea seeking a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act does not confer authority on Central government officers to issue information blocking orders, which can only be issued after following the procedure under Section 69A of the Act, read with IT Rules.

Justice M Nagaprassana while dictating the order said,

"Social media, as modern amphitheater of ideas, cannot be left in a state of anarchich freedom. Regulation of information in this domain is neither novel nor unique. United States of America regulates it. Every sovereign nation regulates it. And India's resolve likewise, cannot by any stretch of Constitutional imagination, be branded as unlawful. Unregulated speech under the guise of liberty becomes a license to lawlessness. Regulated speech by contrast, preserves both liberty and order, the twin pillars upon which the democracy must stand. No social media platform in the modern day agora may even seem the semblance of exemption from rigour of discipline of laws of the land. None may presume to treat the Indian marketplace as a mere playground where information can be disseminated in defiance of statute or disregard to legality, and later adopting a posture of detachment or a hands off...The content on social media needs to be regulated and its regulation is a must, more so in cases of offences against women in particular failing which right to dignity as ordained in the Constitution of a citizen gets railroaded. We are a society governed by laws. Order is the architecture of our democracy. Every platform that seeks to operate within the jurisdiction of our nation, which they do must accept that liberty is with responsibility and the privilige of access carries with it the solemn duty of accountability."

The judge opined that American judicial thought cannot be transplanted into the soil of Indian Constitutional thought. "The judicial thought process has undergone a complete change in realm of free speech, even in the United States in the aftermath of the judgment of Reno v. Civil Liberties Union (1997)," he added.

Reading a summary of his order, Justice Nagaprassana said,

"...Information and communication, it's spread or speed has never been left unchecked and unregulated. It has always been a subject matter of regulation. As and when the technology develops from messengers to postal aids till the age of WhatsApp, Instagram and Snapchat, all have been regulated by regulatory regimes subsisting then and subsisting today, both globally and locally. Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution - right to free speech and expression is edged by restrictions under Article 19(2) and is always subject to those reasonable restrictions."

He added, "Article 19 of the Constitution of India- noble in its spirit and luminous in its promise remains nevertheless charter of rights conferred upon citizens only. Petitioner who seeks sanctuary under its canopy must be a citizen of the nation, failing which the protective embrace of Article 19 cannot be invoked."

On Sahyog portal, the Court said it is far from being constitutional anathema. "In truth it's an instrument of public good, conceived under the authority of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and Rule 3(b) of the 2021 Rules. It stands as a beacon of cooperation between citizen and the intermediary— a mechanism through which the State endeavors to combat the growing menace of cyber crime. To assail its validity is to misunderstand its purpose. Hence the challenge is without merit."

The Court also noted that X Corp is subject to a regulatory regime in the US and it chooses to follow the law which criminalises violation of take down orders. "But the same Petitioner refuses to follow the same in the shores of this nation..."

It also observed that the judgment in Shreya Singhal case dealt with 2011 IT Rules and is now "confined to history". It observed,

"Now 2021 Rules, fresh in their conception and distinct in their design, demand their own interpretative trend, unsided by precedents that address the bygone regime.

A copy of the order will be made available tomorrow, the judge said.

The court passed the order in X Corp's plea seeking a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) IT Act does not confer the authority to issue information blocking orders and such orders can only be issued after following the procedure under Section 69A of the Act read with the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules. The court had reserved its verdict on the plea on July 29.

The platform had further sought a direction to various ministries of the Union of India from taking coercive or prejudicial action against X in relation to any 'Information Blocking Orders' issued other than those issued in accordance with section 69A of the IT Act, read with the blocking rules.

It had also sought protection from any coercive action against the company, its representatives or employees, for not joining the censorship portal 'Sahyog', till the final adjudication of its petition.

'Sahyog' Portal has been developed to automate the process of sending take down notices under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, to intermediaries by the appropriate government or its agency, to facilitate the removal or disabling of access to any information, data or communication link being used to commit an unlawful act.

X had argued that that compelling social media intermediaries to scrutinise users' content and take down the same if found 'unlawful' under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, goes against the Supreme Court's directions in the case of Shreya Singhal. It was submitted that the Government never urged Section 79 as an empowering section in Shreya Singhal's case, and thus, an exemption provision could not become a source of power.

Meanwhile the Union Government said that illegality or unlawful content cannot attract the same level of Constitutional protections as Free speech. On protection of Safe Harbour to intermediaries the Centre said that Safe harbour is always a conditional protection, available only when due diligence is demonstrably exercised by any intermediary.

Centre further argued that "chilling effect" is not a defence to disseminate content that is 'not in the interest of society' and two, that X cannot claim chilling effect on behalf of its users. It was argued that Sahyog Portal enables an authorised officer of the government to send notice to intermediary regarding any unlawful content and is an administrative procedure in the interest of intermediary.

Case Title: X CORP AND Union of India & Others

Case No: WP 7405/2025