Glorification Of Lawlessness Through Social Media, Reels 'Dangerous': Karnataka HC Orally Observes In X's Plea Against Centre's Sahyog Portal

X Corp (formerly Twitter) has filed a petition before the Karnataka High Court, seeking protection from any coercive action against the company, its representatives or employees, for not joining the censorship portal 'Sahyog', till the final adjudication of its petition.

'Sahyog' Portal has been developed to automate the process of sending take down notices under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, to intermediaries by the appropriate government or its agency, to facilitate the removal or disabling of access to any information, data or communication link being used to commit an unlawful act.

Today, during the hearing Justice M Nagaprasanna orally remarked that many unlawful activities are being glorified through social media platforms and noted that the Court would consider the issue of breaking the law and displaying it on social media.

"Today in the form of this reels many things, unlawful activities are glorified. What it does is, it sends a signal. That signal of lawlessness; when govt is coming up with mechanism to control...Today information is power...Spreading of (mis)information is dangerous," the Court orally remarked.

It further noted "I am saying it hypothetically. There is a law that you should not do something. There are people who would break the law with impunity, and glorify that if you permit that breaking of law and glorifying that breaking of law... These are larger questions we will answer."

The petition seeks a direction to various ministries of the Union of India from taking coercive or prejudicial action against X in relation to any 'Information Blocking Orders' issued other than those issued in accordance with section 69A of the IT Act, read with the blocking rules.

In essence, X's contention is that various officers of the Union Ministries are issuing notices to it under Section 79 of the IT for taking down content, which are in effect 'blocking orders' under Section 69A of the Act. X argues that the government cannot issue blocking orders under Section 79, by bypassing the procedure required to be followed under Section 60 of the Act. 

For context, Section 69 deals with the power of the Central or State government to issue directions for 'blocking' public access to any information. Whereas, Section 79 of the IT Act exempts an intermediary from liability for any information, data or communication link made by a third party. However, Section 79(3)(b) provides that upon receiving actual knowledge or on being notified by the appropriate Government that any information is being used to commit the unlawful act, the intermediary would be liable if it fails to expeditiously remove access to such information.

X seeks a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act does not confer authority to issue information-blocking orders under the Act, and that such orders can only be issued under Section 69A of the IT Act (read with the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking For Access of Information By Public) Rules, 2009).

During the hearing, Advocate Manu Kulkarni appearing for X argued that the UOI was compelling it to onboard on the Sahyog portal. Senior Advocate K G Raghavan, also appearing for X, raised concerns that various authorities and officers in the country are issuing notices to take down the content from the platform. Raghavan argued that an authority can ask an intermediary to take down the content only under Section 69 of the IT Act. He submitted that by a 'back door entry', various authorities are exercising power under Sec 79 of the IT Act.

The Court will continue hearing the matter on March 27.

Earlier the petition filed by X Corp challenging the blocking orders issued by the Government of India through the Ministry of Electronic & IT directing the company to take down content on the social media platform was dismissed. Following this, it has filed an appeal which is pending.

Case Title: X CORP AND Union of India & Others

Case No: WP 7405/2025

(Compiled by Sanjana Dadmi)