Social media giant X Corp has informed the Karnataka High Court that it received 29,118 government requests to remove content between January and June 2025, complying with 26,641 of them, a 91.49 per cent compliance rate.
The company argued that these figures contradict a single judge’s September 24 finding that the platform intended to defy Indian law. The data was furnished as part of X’s writ appeal against an order upholding the Union government’s 'Sahyog' portal, the online system used to issue takedown directions to intermediaries.
X Corp contention
In its recent appeal, X Corp contended that government agencies are unlawfully using Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, along with Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 IT Rules, to issue content removal orders.
This mechanism, the company argued, is parallel and unconstitutional because it bypasses Section 69A of the IT Act, which is the sole statutory process for blocking online content in India. The social media company cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shreya Singhal versus Union of India (2015), which upheld the Section 69A framework and its built-in safeguards.
X claimed that Section 79 is just a protective measure for intermediaries, meaning it helps shield them from legal responsibility for the content shared on their platforms, but doesn’t give the government the power to block specific content. However, a memorandum from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) dated October 31, 2023, reportedly allowed many officials from various ministries and state governments to issue orders to block content using Section 79(3)(b) and Rule 3(1)(d), which could bypass a more strict procedure outlined in Section 69A.
'Sahyog' portal to facilitate such orders
The company stated that the Ministry of Home Affairs set up a secret online platform called 'Sahyog' based on orders from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY). This platform allows for the removal of online content without following legal procedures or being open about the process. According to X, this is an inappropriate use of government power that allows for censorship without proper legal protection for individuals.
The petition cited several examples of state police and central ministries directing the removal of political criticism, news reports, parody, and other lawful speech under Rule 3(1)(d).
Lacks the procedural protections
X Corp argued that Rule 3(1)(d) does not provide the necessary legal protections required by Section 69A. They pointed out that it lacks important features like clearly explained decisions and the specific, limited reasons allowed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
Allowing the government to block content under a less rigorous mechanism, it argued, violates Article 14 and renders Section 69A redundant.
The single judge, the company noted, failed to consider these constitutional implications.
A key plank of the appeal is the allegation that the single judge misapplied the Shreya Singhal case, wrongly concluding that it had been diluted after the 2021 IT Rules replaced the 2011 framework. X maintained that the Supreme Court ruling remains fully applicable because the core statutory provisions — Sections 69A, 79, and the 2009 Blocking Rules — have not changed.
ALSO READ: Affordable voice plans: Users call for action as telcos tweak recharge offerings
Inputs from PTI
