Why was X’s ‘censorship’ challenge rejected? | Explained

The story so far:

TThe Supreme Court of Karnataka rejected the petition against the Sahyog portal of the Union government, which enabled the removal of the content of the X Corp’s Information Technology (CT) Law (CT) in accordance with the 79 (3) (b) section. The decision (Twitter) refers to a current, as it was adopted by the government’s content framework for months and the government’s content framework, including the government, including the government, and that it is accepted by Microfting, and this telegraph. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who was decided, said that social media cannot be “anarchic freedom” and that the digital field of India cannot be considered as a playground where information can be spread only for the challenge of regulations ”.

How does Sahyog portal work?

Sahyog Portal, initiated by the Ministry of Interior (MHA) in October 2024, is operated by Indian Cyber ​​Salon Coordination Center (I4C) as a central platform to give orders to internet intermediaries, including telecom operators, internet service providers, social media platforms and web hosting services. Its aim is to implement the 79th of the CT Law, which provides “safe port” protection to intermediaries, and to protect them from the content responsibility created by the user. For example, a platform cannot be sued for a slandering article normally published by a user. Legal responsibility belongs only to the individual who constitutes the content.

However, this protection is conditional. Section 79 (3) (b) in accordance with, intermediaries, after receiving “real information ilgi from a state institution about illegal information,“ If they cannot quickly remove or disable them. Portal was introduced to automate and facilitate such declarations. Shabana and Govt. Delhi and Ors NCT (2024), a 19 -year -old lost Delhi Supreme Court case. During the proceedings, the court stressed the need for a mechanism to facilitate real -time coordination between intermediaries and law enforcement officers in time -sensitive cases.

Reviewed by court records Hindu Show that approximately one -third of the removal notification sent by I4C to X for last year targets tasks about union ministers and central government agencies. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Interior Minister Amit Shah and his son Jay Shah, Interior Minister Bandi Sanjay Kumar and Finance Minister Nirmala Sithaman’a reference to the abolition of tasks were marked.

Why did X go to court?

In March, an Elon Musk’s X filed a petition of a writer who defined the legality of the Sahyog portal, which he described as a “censorship portal ında at the Supreme Court of Karnataka. The company argued that the government called 79 (3) (B) of the CT Law to eliminate the tighter and more transparent procedure within the scope of Chapter 69a.

According to X, two provisions serve different purposes. Section 79 Only gives the intermediaries with a safe port protection from the responsibility for the content created by the user, while Chapter 69A strengthens the Center for online material, but only pursuant to Article 19 (2) of the Constitution, such as the integration of the public state with the public state, do-hükümemet, friendship, friendship, friendship, friendship, friendship, friendship, friendship, friendship, friendship, friendship, friendship, friendship, friendship, friendship, friendship, friendship, friendship, friendship, friendship, friendship, friendship, friendship, friendship, friendship, friendship, friendship, friendship, friendship, friendship, friendship, friendship, friendship Create a committee, give intermediaries the chance to be heard and provide a justified written order and ensure the possibility of a judicial examination.

To strengthen his case, the X relied on the turning point of the Supreme Court. Shreya Singhal and Indian Union (2015) has reduced the 66A section of the CT Law for uncertainty, and the approved section 69A is a constitutional valid framework to restrict online content subject to procedural measures. In accordance with the section 79 (3) (b), the court states that the removal instructions from the publication may only monitor a court decision or an official government notification and that it should be adhered to the constitutional reasons in Article 19 (2) as reflected in Chapter 69a. By allowing thousands of officials to give notification through Sahyog in both trade union and state governments, the X argued that the center constitutes a “parallel” and “illegal” censorship regime deprived of these guarantees.

In order to support the challenge of X, Digipub, a 92 digital news organization, intervened in the cases, claiming that the removal orders of the removal orders from the publication directed through Sahyog had a disproportionate effect on their targeted members.

What was the defense of the government?

The Union government defended Sahyog as a necessary regulatory mechanism. He argued that the distinctive nature of the internet with algorithm guided virality requires more strict supervision than traditional media. The safe harbor said it is not a natural right, but a legal privilege, and platforms that cannot move on illegal content notifications will lose this protection. Sahyog has functionalized this obligation by creating a aerodynamic channel for such notifications.

Rejecting the claim that it has created a parallel blocking regime, the government stressed that 79 and 69a sections operate independently. The fact that a Sahyog notification was not complied with, argued that there was not direct censorship, but only legal immune loss. The Portal insisted, it was an administrative tool to facilitate rapid action against illegal online content.

The government also X Corp locus standAs a foreign company, it guarantees only freedom of speech and expression to Indian citizens by pointing out that it cannot call fundamental rights in accordance with Article 19. The Union Government, represented by lawyer General Tushar Mehta, claimed that X was looking for “special treatment in India while comparing comparable regulatory regimes elsewhere. He also pointed out that X is the only major tool that is not integrated with Sahyog.

What did the Supreme Court decided?

Justice Nagaprasanna, who dismissed X’s challenge as “no merit”, described Sahyog as both the “public good tool” and the “sign of cooperation between citizens and intermediaries”. He stressed that surveillance is especially vital in cases that affect women’s dignity.

The court also approved the Objection of the Center’s legal stance and decided that Article 19 of the Constitution was “the regulation of rights granted only to citizens”. Since X is not an Indian citizen, he decided by the Company that “the protective embrace of Article 19 cannot be called”. The decision, which gave a harsh warning to foreign social media companies, warned that India could not be treated as a “playground ğı in which the information was“ challenging the law ”and later rejected by the“ platoon stance ”. The court entry into the Indian market is a “privilege depending on responsibility and accountability” and no platform cannot demand exemption from the legal framework of the country.

In a sharp critique of X’s behavior, Justice Nagaprasanna observed that the platform complies with the lifting regimes in the United States, “The same platform still refuses to comply with the relief instructions in this country”. The United States accusing the publication of deep teeth and intimate images produced by AI, referring to 2025, referring to 2025, X said that X applied criminal responsibility for incompatibility, but resisting the equivalent obligations in India.

The court also rejected the main debate that X’s Sahyog portal did not have legal support and that the 79 (3) (b) of the CT Law did not give the authority to remove the content publication.

Justice Nagaprasanna, the decision of the Supreme Court Shreya Singhal He anchored the rules of 2011, which is currently destroyed, and “could not be transferred” in the current context.

His 2021, “new and different in their designs when they are pregnant” and therefore “demanding their own interpreter frameworks that are not named by the precedent addressing a past regime”.

What are the inferences?

Tech Global Institute Program President Prateek Waghre, Hindu The Supreme Court’s decision gives risks that enable state control to expand uncontrolled on online content. “The problem lies in the absence of clear, narrow and objective criteria for what creates illegal content. In practice, this will probably lead to a wider knowledge censorship that encourages political accountability and suppressing views throughout the spectrum.”

Mr. Waghre warned that their lifting from the content broadcast launched by platforms or managed by law enforcement officers was not a sustainable solution, because both actors often work in selective and self -serving ways. “Law enforcement officers already have mechanisms to prosecute harmful speech under the criminal codes, but they are applied inconsistently and subjectively. The continuation of the change between the harmful expression and the selective practice, the use of power abuse and the protection of the free expression will continue. There is no easy corrections here.

In a statement published on September 29, the X said that the only judge was “deeply worried” and will apply for appeal. However, it did not clarify whether the difficulty could be taken before or directly to the Supreme Court of the Supreme Court of Karnataka.

X also argued that the decision was inconsistent with the decision of a Supreme Court of Bombays in September last year, and that the Union Government has reduced the Press Information Office of the Press Information Office on the grounds that it violated natural justice principles by allowing unilateral determinations by the executive.