The Karnataka High Court has delivered a decisive blow to X Corp (formerly Twitter), rejecting the platform’s petition that sought to challenge the Indian government’s authority to issue content takedown orders under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. In a ruling pronounced on September 24, 2025, Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that foreign entities like X cannot invoke the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, as this protection is reserved for Indian citizens. For legal experts, free speech advocates, and social media stakeholders searching Karnataka High Court X free speech ruling, Sahyog portal takedown orders, or Section 79(3)(b) IT Act challenge 2025, the decision upholds the government’s Sahyog portal as a “public good” instrument, mandating platforms to comply with blocking directives while emphasizing that “unregulated speech under the guise of liberty becomes a licence for lawlessness.” X may appeal to the Supreme Court, but the verdict reinforces India’s regulatory framework for social media, balancing free expression with national security.
The case stemmed from X’s challenge to the government’s use of the Sahyog portal for expedited takedown orders, arguing it bypassed procedural safeguards under Section 69A.
The Verdict: Foreign Platforms Can’t Claim Article 19 Rights
Justice Nagaprasanna’s 100-page order dismissed X’s core arguments, ruling that the platform, as a foreign entity, lacks standing to invoke Article 19(1)(a)’s free speech protections, which apply only to Indian citizens. The court also upheld the Sahyog portal’s legitimacy, describing it as an efficient tool under Section 79(3)(b) for intermediaries to comply with takedown directives, without overriding Section 69A’s procedural requirements.
Key observations:
- Regulation Essential: Social media cannot operate in “anarchic freedom”; global precedents, including US shifts post-Reno v. ACLU, justify restrictions.
- Sahyog Portal: An “instrument of public good” under IT Rules 2021, facilitating swift compliance without bypassing safeguards.
- No Unchecked Censorship: Orders must adhere to Shreya Singhal guidelines, with judicial review available.
The court livestreamed the verdict, emphasizing transparency.
| Key Ruling | Court’s Observation | Legal Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Free Speech Claim | Foreign platforms ineligible for Article 19(1)(a) | Reserved for Citizens |
| Sahyog Portal | Instrument of public good, not censorship | Section 79(3)(b) & IT Rules |
| Regulation Need | Unregulated speech leads to lawlessness | Global Precedents (US, EU) |
Case Background: X’s Challenge to Sahyog Portal and Takedown Powers
X Corp filed the petition in January 2025, arguing that government takedown orders via the Sahyog portal bypassed Section 69A’s procedural safeguards, violating Shreya Singhal (2015) by enabling unchecked censorship. The portal, launched in 2023, streamlines blocking for illegal content like hate speech or misinformation, but X claimed it lacked judicial oversight.
The Centre countered that X, as an intermediary, must comply with lawful orders and cannot claim free speech for hosted content, citing Shreya Singhal’s intermediary liability limits.
Hearings spanned months, with arguments concluding in July 2025.
Implications: A Win for Regulation, Setback for Platforms
The ruling strengthens the government’s toolkit for content moderation:
- Portal Validation: Sahyog’s efficiency upheld, streamlining takedowns for national security.
- Free Speech Boundaries: Reinforces that platforms are intermediaries, not speakers, subject to reasonable restrictions.
- Global Echoes: Aligns with US post-Reno v. ACLU shifts and EU’s DSA, but critics fear overreach.
X’s appeal to the Supreme Court could test these limits, but the verdict solidifies India’s regulatory stance.
Conclusion: A Regulatory Win for India, Challenge for Platforms
The Karnataka High Court’s rejection of X’s free speech argument affirms social media’s regulated status, prioritizing public order over unchecked expression. As X contemplates a Supreme Court appeal, the ruling could shape global platform accountability. For free speech defenders, it’s a caution; for regulators, a blueprint. Will the top court reverse it? The portals remain open. Tech Crunch
