Karnataka HC denies interim relief to X in Sahyog portal censorship case

While denying interim relief to X, Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that liberty had already been given to X to approach the court if it faced coercive action, on March 17

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday denied interim relief to social media platform X (formerly Twitter) in its plea against the Indian government’s content-blocking mechanism through the Sahyog portal, Bar and Bench reported.

 

But first, what is the Sahyog portal 

According to its official website, “Sahyog Portal has been developed to automate the process of sending notices to intermediaries (like X) by the Appropriate Government or its agency under the IT Act, 2000 to facilitate the removal or disabling of access to any information, data, or communication link being used to commit an unlawful act.”

 

The portal was launched by the Union Home Ministry in 2024.

 

 

As of now, around 15 IT intermediaries have joined the portal, including Google, Meta, Telegram, Quora, Apple, and Amazon, according to The Indian Express.

 

What is X’s problem with Sahyog? 

On March 5, X filed a lawsuit against the government challenging its directives to mandatorily onboard itself onto the Sahyog portal. The platform described it as a “censorship portal” that expands India’s censorship powers by allowing government officials to bypass judicial oversight and directly order content removals.

 

The government, however, maintains that the Sahyog portal is a compliance tool, not a censorship mechanism, and that no content is blocked without due process.

 

The Elon Musk–owned company argued that takedown orders via Sahyog are based on India’s use of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and thus bypass the safeguards mandated under Section 69A.

 

Traditionally, content could be blocked only after a judicial review by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) under Section 69A of the Act.

 

Senior advocate KG Raghavan, representing X, urged the court to restrain the government from taking any coercive action against the platform unless blocking orders are issued in line with Section 69A, Bar and Bench reported.

 

“The interim prayer is innocuous. It does not affect adversely any concern expressed by the Union of India. The concern of the Union of India is legitimate—no one can say I won’t comply with the laws of this country. If you want to do business in this country, you have to comply. We are all on the same side, that nothing can be done which adversely affects the country… All we are saying is—the law is completely codified in Section 69A of the IT Act,” he said. 

He further argued that content-blocking orders cannot be issued solely by invoking Section 79(3)(b) as a standalone provision.

 

What did the Karnataka High Court say? 

While denying interim relief to X, Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that liberty had already been granted to the platform on March 17 to approach the court if it faced coercive action, Bar and Bench reported.

 

The court held that there was no need for any interim protection at this stage.