Elon Musk-owned X has filed a legal petition in the Karnataka High Court, arguing that the Indian government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and the Sahyog Portal creates an unlawful and unregulated censorship mechanism that bypasses statutory safeguards.

X Corp contends that the government is misinterpreting Section 79(3)(b) to issue takedown orders that do not adhere to the procedures prescribed under Section 69A, which the Supreme Court has recognised as the only valid legal framework for blocking online content (Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, 2015), the petition said.

Moneycontrol has seen a copy of the petition.

The petition comes as the Central government has asked X to clarify the responses generated by its AI chatbot, Grok.

During the first hearing, taken up recently, the Indian government said that no action has been taken against X for not joining Sahyog Portal. The court has also granted liberty to X to move the court if the government takes any preemptive action against X regarding the matter.

The next hearing is on March 27.

This is not the first time X Corp has taken legal action against the Indian government. In 2022, the company challenged takedown orders issued under Section 69A, arguing that the government’s directives lacked transparency and violated free speech protections.

The main issue

X Corp, in the petition, argues that authorities are invoking Section 79(3)(b) as a means to impose content takedowns while sidestepping the procedural requirements set forth in Section 69A.

These requirements include recording reasons in writing, providing a pre-decisional hearing, and allowing for legal challenges—all of which, the company asserts, are being ignored.

“In Shreya Singhal, the Supreme Court upheld Section 69A as an information blocking power only because it is "a narrowly drawn provision with several safeguards"... These safeguards and requirements do not exist in Section 79(3)(b), unlike Section 69A. Instead, Section 79(3)(b)
refers broadly to an "unlawful act" and contains no procedures for exercising the power to block information,” states the petition.

What is the problem with Sahyog?

A major contention raised by X is the introduction of the Sahyog Portal, an online system managed by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) that enables state police and various government departments to issue takedown requests directly—without adhering to the due process under Section 69A.

X asserts that the portal creates a parallel framework for content censorship, allowing thousands of officials to order content removals without transparency or oversight.

This comes at a time when the Indian government is pushing social media platforms to integrate with Sahyog, a new portal for direct CSAM reporting to local authorities. A 2024 Supreme Court ruling requires platforms to report CSAM not just to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC)—as mandated by U.S. law—but also to Indian law enforcement under the POCSO Act.

This has put US-based platforms in a legal bind, raising concerns in meetings with MeitY and I4C over compliance conflicts. Amid this broader standoff, a platform has now taken the Indian government to court over Sahyog, but for entirely different reasons. Additionally, the company has challenged the requirement to appoint a ‘Nodal Officer’ to facilitate compliance with directives issued through the portal, arguing that such a mandate lacks statutory legitimacy.

What is X seeking?

The key arguments in the petition include:

Lack of statutory authority: Section 79(3)(b) was designed as a safe-harbor provision for intermediaries, not as a censorship tool for government agencies.

Violation of constitutional rights: The government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) for content takedowns infringes on Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression).

Evasion of legal safeguards: Section 69A mandates procedural protections such as pre-decisional hearings, written justifications, and the ability to challenge blocking orders—none of which are present in the government’s current approach.

X Corp has sought urgent judicial intervention to:

1. Declare that Section 79(3)(b) does not grant the government authority to issue blocking orders.
2. Invalidate all content takedown orders issued under Section 79(3)(b).
3. Restrict the enforcement of orders from the Sahyog Portal until a final decision is reached.
4. Reaffirm Section 69A as the sole statutory mechanism for online content blocking.

Source