The Indian government has vociferously defended its ‘Sahyog’ portal in the Karnataka High Court, countering allegations from the social media platform X Corp, which branded the portal as a tool of censorship. The Centre’s response emphasized the legal and procedural validity of the Information Technology (IT) Act, particularly in the context of content regulation and blocking.
X Corp’s petition had challenged the Indian government’s authority under Sections 69A and 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, arguing that the government’s content-blocking orders bypassed established legal safeguards and the precedents set by the Supreme Court, specifically in the Shreya Singhal case. X Corp contended that Section 79(3)(b) does not permit the government to issue direct content-blocking orders without adhering to the stringent requirements of Section 69A.
In its submission, the government clarified the distinct functions of Sections 69A and 79(3)(b). Section 69A explicitly allows for the issuance of blocking orders under certain conditions, complete with several safeguards to regulate online content. In contrast, Section 79(3)(b) is designed to ensure that intermediaries comply with their due diligence obligations when they receive notices from authorized entities.
“The framework of Section 79 does not authorize ‘blocking orders’ but notifies intermediaries of their responsibilities under the IT Act. Non-compliance could lead to a loss of safe harbor protections and potential action under Rule 7 of the IT Rules, 2021,” explained the government. It emphasized that Section 79 aims at defining the conditions under which intermediaries can claim safe harbor protection, while Section 69A deals with the legal framework for blocking access to information.
Addressing the specific criticisms of the Sahyog portal, the government described it as a facilitative mechanism designed to enhance coordination between intermediaries and law enforcement agencies, streamlining the process for swift action against unlawful online content. This platform, according to the government, is crucial for both intermediaries and investigative authorities, enabling efficient communication and compliance with legal requests.
“It is misleading to label Sahyog as a censorship tool. By doing so, X Corp is misrepresenting its role, shifting from an intermediary to a content creator, which is not only regrettable but also unacceptable,” the government’s statement read.
Moreover, the government reiterated that as a foreign commercial entity, X Corp does not possess an inherent right to host or defend third-party content, drawing parallels with a previous case involving Twitter where the Karnataka High Court ruled that Articles 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution do not extend to such companies.
