Social media can't be left in 'anarchic freedom': Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed the plea of social-media platform X (formerly Twitter) against the Centre’s Sahyog Portal and said the platform was essential for the government to maintain law and order.

 

“The Sahyog Portal stands as a beacon of cooperation between the citizen and the intermediary, a mechanism through which the state endeavours to combat the growing menace of cybercrime,” Justice M Nagaprassana said in his judgment.

 

Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology Rules, 2021, mandates that an online intermediary must remove or disable access to information that violates rules and this must be done within 36 hours of receiving notice of such violations.

 

The court also said that the company’s arguments were “without merit”.

 

Observing that social media could not be left in anarchic freedom, the court said that every sovereign nation regulated social media. 

 

“No social media platform can treat the Indian marketplace as a mere playground. In the light of the observations, the content of social media needs to be regulated,” the court said.

 

In its judgment on Wednesday, the court also dismissed X’s interpretation of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (IT) Act. Section 79(3)(b) removes “safe harbour” protection from intermediaries if they fail to “expeditiously remove or disable access to” unlawful content on knowing about it or receiving a government notification about such content being used for an unlawful act. 

 

The court also said that the landmark case of Shreya Singhal versus Union of India must be reconsidered. 

 

“Shreya Singhal spoke of 2011 rules, now consigned to history. The 2021 rules, fresh in their conception and distinct in their design, demand their own interpretative frame, unsettled by precedents that address the bygone regime. Social media as a modern amphitheatre of ideas cannot be left in a state of anarchic freedom,” the court said.

 

The Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of Singhal had laid down key safeguards against government censorship and clarified the liability of online platforms.

 

The ruling struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalised sending “offensive” messages via computers or communication devices, but upheld Sections 79(3)(b) and 69A with safeguards to prevent misuse of safe-harbour provisions.

 

On October 31, 2023, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (Meity) had directed all central ministries, state governments, state directors general of police, and local police officers that they were authorised to issue information blocking orders under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act.  

 

X then moved the court, arguing that the Centre’s interpretation of the Information Technology (IT) Act, particularly its use of Section 79(3)(b), violated a landmark Supreme Court ruling on Singhal and undermines free expression online. 

 

In the Singhal judgment, the court had ruled that under Section 79(3)(b), online intermediaries could not be held liable for user-generated content unless they failed to act on a court order or a government directive. A mere request or complaint is not enough to mandate content removal, the judgment clarified, ensuring that takedown decisions followed legal scrutiny. 

 

At the same time, the court upheld Section 69A, which allows the government to block content on grounds of national security and public order. However, it stressed that blocking orders must be reasoned, follow due process, and be open to judicial review, preventing arbitrary censorship.

 

The key difference is that while Section 79(3)(b) protects intermediaries from liability unless a court or government directs a takedown, it ensures a transparent process. In contrast, Section 69A gives the government the power to block content directly, but with procedural safeguards. 

 

Meanwhile, the Centre, during the hearing on the matter, had told the court that X Corp could not claim the right to free speech under Article 19 of the Constitution of India because it was a “notice board” and only those who posted or spoke could claim this right. Article 19 confers the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression to Indian citizens. 

 

The court upheld the Centre’s position and said that “Article 19(1), a constitutional right to free speech and expression, is hedged by restrictions under Article 19(2), and is always subject to those reasonable restrictions”.

 

A detailed judgment copy is likely to be uploaded on Thursday. 

What the court said

 

• Sahyog Portal an instrument of public good
• Content of social media needs to be regulated
• No social media platform can treat Indian marketplace as a mere playground
• Observed that every sovereign nation regulates social media
• Right to free speech and expression always subject to reasonable restrictions