Social networking site and microblogging website X (formerly Twitter) has expressed its "deep concern" regarding the Karnataka High Court's September 24 judgment validating the government's Sahyog Portal. The company termed the ruling as a blow to free expression in India and reaffirmed its intent to appeal the judgment.
In a statement posted through its global government affairs account, X reaffirmed its "deep concern" regarding the ruling, which rejected the company's petition against the portal. X contended the Sahyog Portal model "permits millions of police officers to make arbitrary takedown orders" through a "secretive online portal" without judicial supervision or due process.
The firm went on to claim that the order "has no foundation in law, goes around Section 69A of the IT Act, contravenes Supreme Court judgments and curbs Indian citizens' constitutional rights of freedom of speech and expression."
One of the key arguments of X is that the Sahyog Portal evades the procedural protection under Section 69A of the IT Act. Under Section 69A, content can be blocked by the central government for particular reasons such as national security or public order, by a formal procedure involving a review committee, written instructions, and hearings. X argues, nevertheless, that the Sahyog Portal allows police officers to send out takedown orders under Section 79(3)(b) without judicial oversight or due process, constituting a "parallel blocking power" without the legal safeguards of Section 69A.
On September 24, the challenge by X Corp was dismissed by the Karnataka High Court, which held that social media posts "cannot be left unregulated in the name of free speech." As Justice M Nagaprasanna read out the excerpts from the verdict, the Sahyog Portal was called an "instrument of public good" and "a beacon of cooperation" between citizens and platforms to fight cybercrime.
The court explained, "Sahyog Portal, rather than being Constitutional anathema, in its reality is a tool of public good thought out under the auspices of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and Rule 3(d) of the 2021 Rules."
As far as X being a foreign company is concerned, the court noted that Article 19(1)(a) rights are held only by Indian citizens, not companies like X, which is a Nevada-based company with offices in San Francisco. X pushed back by saying in its Monday post that this argument brushes aside its genuine concerns, citing its pivotal place in India's public discussion.
The court also threw out X's argument based on the Supreme Court's Shreya Singhal judgment, holding that it was premised on archaic IT rules and not applicable to the present regime under the 2021 Rules. The order upholds the legality of the Sahyog Portal, which has already been embraced by 38 other intermediaries, such as Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Telegram, leaving X one of the few big tech players holding out.
Though the government insisted that the portal is vital to enable fast response to harmful content, X argued that the system forces platforms to delete posts only on the basis of charges of illegality, under threat of criminal prosecution, and promised it would appeal "to protect free expression."
Read also| iPhone 17 Pre-Orders in India Outpace iPhone 16 Launch: Report
