In X vs Centre, Digipub moves Karnataka HC over Section 79 overreach and Sahyog Portal

In March, X moved the Karnataka High Court against Union government's take down orders under Sec 79 3 b

Digital media collective Digipub News India Foundation has approached the Karnataka High Court seeking to intervene in the ongoing legal challenge between the Union government and X (formerly Twitter) over content takedown orders issued under the Information Technology Act.

In an interlocutory application, Digipub has asked to be impleaded as a party respondent, stating that the issues at the heart of the case between X and Centre have a direct bearing on digital publishers and press freedom.

Digipub, which represents a group of independent digital news platforms, argued that the case raises “serious constitutional and statutory questions” around the functioning of takedown mechanisms under Section 69A and Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act.

The organisation said that while X is contesting the legality of specific takedown directions issued by the Centre, the larger constitutional and structural implications go well beyond a single platform’s grievance.

One of the core issues Digipub wants the court to examine is the growing use of Section 79(3)(b), a provision that disqualifies intermediaries from safe harbour if they fail to take down unlawful content upon actual knowledge.

The foundation said this clause is being increasingly interpreted by the government to bypass due process and enforce censorship without issuing formal blocking orders under Section 69A.

“Such an interpretation allows the executive to achieve indirectly what it is constitutionally and statutorily barred from doing directly,” Digipub said in its plea.

It added that this creates a "chilling effect" not only for platforms but also for journalists, publishers and audiences, who are denied transparency and legal recourse when content is taken down summarily.

The organisation also flagged the lack of transparency in the government’s Sahyog portal, a digital interface used to issue takedown directions to intermediaries.

Unlike Section 69A blocking orders, which require recorded reasons and a committee process, notices sent via Sahyog often do not follow any formalised procedure or offer any notice to the affected content creator.

Digipub pointed out that its members have been impacted by these practices, with stories and social media content being taken down without notice or explanation. In such cases, it said, neither the platform nor the publisher is able to seek redress.

"It is crucial that the voices of those intimately affected -- namely, creators of content, the recipients of safe harbour protections and fundamental holders of the right to free expressions -- are given due consideration... While the petitioner (X) is an intermediary whose commercial interests are implicated by Sahyog regime, it is not the direct bearer of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 (1) (a) and Article 19 (1) (g), which are directly engaged by the censorship challenged here," Digipub said in the application.

The foundation is urging the court to consider these wider systemic concerns and not limit its deliberations to the platform’s liability alone. It has also asked the court to examine whether the existing legal framework adequately protects digital news publishers and upholds the right of citizens to access diverse and independent sources of news.

Digipub includes member organisations such as Alt News, Article 14, The News Minute, Scroll, Boomlive and The Wire, many of which have reported instances of arbitrary takedown orders in the past.