The Karnataka High Court on September 24 dismissed X Corp’s (formerly Twitter) petition challenging the government’s Sahyog Portal and its interpretation of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, holding that the company’s arguments were “without merit.”
Delivering the verdict, Justice M Nagaprasanna said the Sahyog Portal was not a tool of censorship but an essential mechanism to help the state combat cybercrime.
“Sahyog Portal is an instrument of public good rather than public anathema,” he observed, adding that it “stands as a beacon of cooperation under which the state combats cybercrime.”
Why did the court quash the petition?
The High Court rejected X Corp’s contention that Section 79(3)(b) was being misused as a censorship tool. Instead, it upheld the government’s authority to use the provision alongside Sahyog for processing takedown orders.
Justice Nagaprasanna ruled that Article 19(1)(a)—the constitutional guarantee of free speech—is not absolute, but subject to reasonable restrictions.
“Article 19(1)(a) is hedged under restrictions and is subject to those reasonable strictures,” he said.
The judge also underscored that principles from American jurisprudence, often cited in arguments on free speech, cannot be imported wholesale into India.
“American thought cannot be transplanted into Indian soil,” he said, adding that even in the US, “judicial thought process has gone a complete change.”
What did the court say about social media platforms?
Justice Nagaprasanna described social media as the “modern amphitheatre of ideas” but warned that it could not be left “anarchic.”
“Every sovereign nation regulates it. Unregulated speech becomes a license for lawlessness,” he said.
On the obligations of global companies, he said no platform can treat India as a market while ignoring its laws: “No social media platform can treat Indian market as a playground without disregard. Liberty is yoked with responsibility. Privilege comes with accountability.”
The court also flagged concerns about misuse of online spaces:
“The contempt of social media needs to be regulated—especially against women. We are a society governed by laws.”
Why was X Corp’s petition considered weak?
The High Court found fault with the very basis of X Corp’s case, noting that the company, as a U.S.-based entity, cannot invoke Article 19 protections, which apply only to Indian citizens.
“A petitioner who seeks relief under Article 19 should be a citizen of the country,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.
He further criticised the platform’s inconsistent approach to global takedown requests:
“The petitioner’s platform is from the USA. It chooses to follow laws of the USA. But the same petitioner refuses to follow similar takedown orders originated from India,” Nagaprasanna said.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
