https://salarnews.in/public/uploads/images/advertisment/1756994003_header_Screenshot 2025-09-04 182836.png

X Corp challenges legality of ‘Sahyog’ portal takedown process with K'taka HC

'X' Corp told the court that thousands of officials are issuing takedown orders through the secret ‘Sahyog’ portal by bypassing Section 69A’s due-process safeguards.

PTI

https://salarnews.in/public/uploads/images/newsimages/maannewsimage17112025_212748_Pics 728x410 (7).png
  • X Corp contended that government agencies are unlawfully using Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, along with Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 IT Rules, to issue content removal orders (Wikipedia)

BENGALURU, 17 NOV


Social media giant 'X' Corp has informed the Karnataka High Court that it received 29,118 government requests to remove content between January and June 2025, complying with 26,641 of them, a 91.49 per cent compliance rate.


The company argued that these figures contradict a single judge’s finding that the platform intends to defy Indian law. The data was furnished as part of X’s writ appeal against the order upholding the Union government’s 'Sahyog' portal, the online system used to issue takedown directions to intermediaries.


X Corp contended that government agencies are unlawfully using Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, along with Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 IT Rules, to issue content removal orders.


This, the company said, creates a parallel and unconstitutional mechanism that bypasses Section 69A of the IT Act, the only statutory process for blocking online content in India.


X argued that Section 79 is merely a 'safe harbour' clause shielding intermediaries from liability and does not empower the government to direct content blocking.


Despite this, on 31 October, 2023 MeitY memorandum allegedly authorised thousands of officials across ministries and state governments to issue blocking directions under this section.


The Ministry of Home Affairs created a confidential 'Sahyog' portal to facilitate such takedown orders without statutory support or transparency.


According to X, this amounts to an impermissible extension of executive power and enables censorship without due process.


X maintained that the Supreme Court ruling remains fully applicable because the core statutory provisions have not changed.