X Corp, owned by Elon Musk, has approached the Karnataka High Court, challenging the Indian government’s application of Section 79(3)(b) (liability of intermediaries) of the IT Act and the Sahyog Portal. The company argues that these mechanisms create an unregulated censorship system that circumvents established legal safeguards.
According to the petition, the government is misusing section 79(3)(b) to issue takedown orders without following the procedures outlined in Section 69A (power to issue directions for blocking for public access of any information through any computer resource), which the Supreme Court has recognised as the sole legal framework for blocking online content. The petition refers to a 2015 ruling by the Supreme Court, which upheld Section 69A because of its built-in procedural safeguards. X Corp has contended that section 79(3)(b) lacks similar protections, as it broadly refers to an “unlawful act” without specifying how takedowns should be conducted.
According to section 79(3)(b), an intermediary can be held liable for a content, if, after receiving actual knowledge of an unlawful act (through a court order or government notification), it fails to remove or disable access to the content in question.
X Corp’s legal move comes at a time when the Indian government has also asked X to clarify the responses generated by its AI chatbot, Grok. During a recent hearing, government representatives stated that X has not faced any consequences for refusing to join the Sahyog Portal. The court has allowed X to seek further legal intervention if the government takes any punitive action. The next hearing is scheduled for March 27.
This is not the first time X has taken the government to court over content takedown orders. In 2022, the company challenged similar directives issued under Section 69A, arguing they lacked transparency and violated free speech rights.
A major point of contention in the latest petition is the Sahyog Portal, an online system managed by the Ministry of Home Affairs. X Corp argues that the portal enables government agencies and police departments to request content removals without following the formal process required under section 69A. The company claims that this system allows large-scale censorship without adequate oversight.
The dispute over Sahyog also comes amid broader regulatory pressure. The government has been urging social media platforms to integrate with Sahyog for reporting child sexual abuse material (CSAM) to Indian authorities. A recent Supreme Court ruling requires platforms to report such content not just to the US-based National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) but also to Indian law enforcement under the POCSO Act. This has created legal challenges for global platforms.
Additionally, X has opposed the requirement to appoint a ‘Nodal Officer’ for facilitating compliance with Sahyog directives, arguing that such a mandate lacks legal backing.
In its petition, X Corp is seeking several key rulings from the court, including a declaration that section 79(3)(b) does not authorize content blocking; the nullification of all takedown orders issued under this provision; a suspension of content removal directives from the Sahyog Portal until a final judgment is made; and an order that Section 69A is the only lawful mechanism for online content regulation.