A new chapter in the ongoing friction between social media giant X (formerly Twitter) and the indian government is unfolding in the karnataka High Court. The tech platform has filed a lawsuit against what it calls the “misuse” of India’s Information technology (IT) Act, particularly Section 79(3)(b), and the controversial “Sahyog Portal.” The outcome of this case could redefine the relationship between tech platforms and government authorities in India’s wallet PLATFORM' target='_blank' title='digital-Latest Updates, Photos, Videos are a click away, CLICK NOW'>digital landscape.
The Allegations: A Legal Shortcut to Censorship?
X’s primary grievance centers around the alleged misuse of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, which requires platforms to remove content deemed illegal when directed by the government or a court order. Failure to comply could strip them of “safe harbor” protections, exposing them to legal liability.
The platform argues that indian authorities are using this provision as a backdoor to bypass the stricter procedural safeguards under Section 69A, which lays out specific grounds for content blocking—such as national security or public order concerns—and mandates oversight by senior officials.
X cites the landmark 2015 Shreya Singhal supreme court ruling, which reinforced that content blocking must follow either a judicial directive or the clear guidelines under Section 69A. By using Section 79(3)(b) instead, X contends that the government is circumventing due process, effectively creating an unchecked censorship mechanism.
The Sahyog Portal: A “Censorship Tool” or Law-and-Order Necessity?
The lawsuit also challenges the government’s Sahyog Portal, launched in 2024 by the Ministry of home Affairs. The portal enables various government bodies, including local law enforcement, to issue takedown orders directly to social media platforms.
X describes the Sahyog Portal as a “censorship portal,” alleging that it provides an unaccountable system where potentially thousands of officials can demand content removals without judicial oversight. The company argues this leads to “unrestrained censorship”, eroding online free speech in the country.
On the other hand, the Indian government defends the portal, claiming it is essential for maintaining law and order in a vast and populous nation. Officials argue that content flagged under Section 79(3)(b) does not require the same strict oversight as Section 69A, as it merely shifts responsibility to platforms rather than mandating removal.
Free Speech vs. Regulation: A Longstanding Clash
This lawsuit is not an isolated event but part of a deeper, ongoing struggle between X and the indian government. The tension dates back to at least 2021, when the platform resisted blocking tweets related to the farmers' protests but ultimately complied under pressure. A previous legal challenge by X against takedown orders was dismissed in 2023, with a fine imposed on the company.
This new legal battle underscores a broader question: who decides what content stays or goes online in India? For X, the lawsuit is about defending free expression. For the indian government, it’s about ensuring online platforms do not become breeding grounds for illegal or harmful content.
The Broader Implications
The karnataka High Court's ruling on march 27, 2025, will be closely watched, not just by tech companies but also by free speech advocates and policymakers. If X prevails, it could lead to greater judicial scrutiny of content moderation laws in India. If the government wins, platforms like X may face increasing pressure to comply with takedown requests under expanded regulatory frameworks.
As wallet PLATFORM' target='_blank' title='digital-Latest Updates, Photos, Videos are a click away, CLICK NOW'>digital governance evolves, the case raises fundamental questions: Where is the line between regulation and censorship? And who holds the ultimate power over online speech in India?
click and follow Indiaherald WhatsApp channel