Karnataka High Court Rejects X Corp’s Challenge to Government’s Authority on Content Regulation

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea filed by Elon Musk’s social media platform, X (formerly Twitter), challenging the authority of the Indian government to regulate online content. The court underscored the necessity of oversight in the digital space, warning that “unchecked speech in the name of freedom can lead to lawlessness.”

The case centered on the government’s ‘Sahyog’ portal, launched in 2024 to streamline takedown requests for objectionable or unlawful online content. X Corp argued that the government lacked statutory authority to issue such orders through the portal, contending that only Section 69A of the Information Technology (IT) Act permits blocking directives. The company described the platform as a “censorship portal” that bypassed established legal safeguards.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, however, rejected the petition as being “without merit.” In his ruling, he described the Sahyog portal as “a beacon of cooperation between citizens and intermediaries” and a legitimate mechanism for combating cybercrime. Citing Article 19(1) of the Constitution, he reiterated that freedom of speech is subject to reasonable restrictions and stressed that communication technologies—“from messengers and postal services to WhatsApp, Instagram, and Snapchat”—have always been subject to regulation, both in India and abroad. “American judicial thought cannot be transplanted into the soil of Indian Constitutional thought,” he observed.

The court further ruled that social media platforms cannot claim “anarchic freedom” in India, nor treat the domestic digital marketplace as a playground. It also noted that X Corp, as a foreign entity, is not entitled to invoke Article 19 protections.

In its submissions, the Centre maintained that X had misinterpreted key provisions of the IT Act, clarifying that takedown notices issued under Section 79(3)(b) read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021 are removal requests, not blocking orders. “It is misleading to label Sahyog as a censorship tool. By doing so, the petitioner wrongfully presents itself as a content creator rather than an intermediary,” the government argued, calling such claims from a global platform “deeply regrettable and unacceptable.”

The ruling is seen as a significant affirmation of the Indian government’s regulatory authority over digital platforms, reinforcing its stance that freedom of expression in cyberspace is not absolute and must remain within constitutional and legal bounds.