X Corp challenged the Centre’s use of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act and the Sahyog portal, arguing that the framework could bypass the safeguards for blocking content under Section 69A. A Karnataka High Court single judge dismissed the challenge on September 24, 2025. X appealed, and on March 10, 2026, a division bench sought the Centre’s response; no final appeal outcome is established here as of August 18, 2026.
What X challenged
X filed W.P. No. 7405 of 2025 in the Karnataka High Court on March 5, 2025. Its case was not an appeal against every individual content-removal notice. It challenged the legal route the Centre was using and the administrative system through which notices were sent.
In its petition, X argued that Section 79(3)(b) does not itself grant the government a power to order information blocked. It challenged Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, as beyond the IT Act or unconstitutional, and asked alternatively that the rule be read narrowly. It also challenged Sahyog as an allegedly unlawful parallel process outside Section 69A. X’s writ petition sets out those claims; they were X’s arguments, not findings of fact about every notice routed through the system.
X’s central concern was that a direction framed as a notice about unlawful information could put platforms under pressure to remove content to preserve safe-harbour protection, without using the specific procedure associated with Section 69A. It said that this could blur the line between a condition on intermediary liability and an independent government takedown power.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
#1 Best Overall
How Sections 69A and 79(3)(b) differ
| Issue | Section 69A | Section 79(3)(b) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary function | Expressly authorises the Central Government or an authorised officer to direct blocking of public access to information in specified circumstances. | Sets a condition on an intermediary’s safe-harbour exemption from liability. |
| Trigger | Specified grounds include sovereignty and integrity of India, defence, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, and preventing incitement to specified offences. | Information is being used to commit an unlawful act, and the intermediary fails to expeditiously remove or disable access after actual knowledge or notification from the appropriate government or its agency. |
| Procedure | Accompanied by the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, including authorised decision-making, written reasons and review arrangements. | The dispute concerns the notification framework in the 2021 Intermediary Rules and what follows if an intermediary does not act. |
| How the parties framed it | X said this was the proper statutory route for blocking public access and its safeguards should not be bypassed. | X said it cannot be turned into a parallel blocking power; the Centre argued it serves a different purpose tied to unlawful acts and safe harbour. |
Section 69A is an express blocking power. Its statutory grounds and procedures are distinct from Section 79, which is primarily about when an intermediary may claim exemption from liability for third-party information. The safeguards associated with Section 69A do not mean every case necessarily includes advance notice or a full adversarial hearing. India Code’s Section 69A text and the associated rules set out that blocking framework.
Section 79(3)(b), by contrast, says the safe-harbour exemption does not apply if an intermediary, after the specified actual knowledge or notification, fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to information being used to commit an unlawful act, while preserving evidence. The question at the heart of X’s case was whether that consequence merely affects immunity from liability or also supports a government direction requiring removal. India Code’s Section 79 text contains the provision.
These terms should not be treated as interchangeable. A Section 69A blocking order, a notice concerning particular information under Section 79(3)(b), removal of an individual post, restriction of a URL, and suspension of an account can describe different actions and legal questions.
What Sahyog does—and what it does not decide
The Centre described Sahyog as a centralised platform for routing notices from authorised government agencies to online intermediaries. According to the government’s account recorded in the judgment, the portal was intended to standardise communications, make notices traceable, reduce duplication and help address delays in contacting platforms.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteThat administrative function is separate from the legal authority for any particular notice. A portal can route a notice, but its existence alone does not establish that the issuing agency was authorised, that the cited law applies, or that the notice is valid. The Centre’s position was that Sahyog created no independent censorship power; Justice M. Nagaprasanna accepted that characterisation at the single-judge stage.
The judgment recorded the government’s statement that, as of March 24, 2025, agencies from 28 states, five Union territories, and six central ministries or departments had been onboarded or notified. Those are figures from the proceedings, not a verified current count. The Karnataka High Court judgment discusses Sahyog and the parties’ positions.
What the Centre argued
The Centre said Sections 69A and 79(3)(b) address different situations. In its account, Section 69A provides a formal means of blocking public access on specified statutory grounds, while Section 79(3)(b) concerns unlawful acts and the conditions under which an intermediary retains safe-harbour protection.
The government also argued that Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 Rules provides for actual knowledge through a court order or notification by the appropriate government or its agency, and that intermediaries must comply with lawful notifications and court orders if they want to retain the relevant protection. It presented Sahyog as a means of transmitting such notices, not as their source of legal authority. These arguments are reflected in the judgment and later reporting on the dispute.
Recommended Free Tools
What the single judge decided
On September 24, 2025, Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed X’s petition. The court did not accept that Section 69A was the only possible route for every direction concerning removal or disabling access to information. It rejected X’s challenge to Rule 3(1)(d) and did not find Sahyog unconstitutional as a censorship portal in itself.
The decision treated a notification under Section 79(3)(b) as distinct from a formal Section 69A blocking order, while accepting the government’s view that the 2021 framework could support a separate mechanism concerning unlawful information. That does not amount to a ruling that every notice is valid or that government authority is unlimited; the legal basis and circumstances of a particular notice remain relevant. The Indian Express report on the dismissal summarises the ruling.
Why the court distinguished Shreya Singhal
In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A, upheld Section 69A and the 2009 Blocking Rules, and considered intermediary-takedown provisions in the then-applicable 2011 IT Rules. X relied on that decision in arguing that an intermediary should not have to remove content merely because a government official asserts it is unlawful.
The Karnataka High Court said Shreya Singhal had addressed the earlier 2011 Rules, while X’s challenge concerned the 2021 Rules. It therefore distinguished the precedent; it did not overrule the Supreme Court’s decision.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
The constitutional and platform questions
The case also raised questions about online speech, the consequences of losing safe harbour, and X’s ability as a foreign corporation to invoke Article 19(1)(a). The dispute should not be reduced to the claim that foreign platforms have no way to challenge executive action in India. The single-judge decision addressed the arguments before it; the appeal may provide a further opportunity for the division bench to consider the legal framework.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Appeal status and timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| March 5, 2025 | X filed W.P. No. 7405 of 2025 in the Karnataka High Court. |
| September 24, 2025 | Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition. |
| March 10, 2026 | A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha issued notice to the Centre in X’s appeal and sought its response. |
| August 18, 2026 | No final appellate decision is established by the sources cited here. |
The notice means the appeal proceeded to a response stage; it is not a decision on the merits. The reported hearing and notice are covered by LiveLaw and Hindustan Times.
Why the dispute matters to platforms and users
For platforms
A platform receiving a notice faces a practical choice under time pressure: act, seek clarification or challenge the direction, while considering potential safe-harbour consequences. Sahyog may help organise and track communications, but centralised routing does not resolve whether each notice has a proper legal basis.
For a notice being assessed, the relevant questions include whether it comes from an authorised government agency, identifies the material at issue, states its legal basis, and gives enough information to preserve evidence and assess a challenge. The case concerns how such directions fit within the statutory framework, not a blanket rule that platforms must remove anything the government labels unlawful.
Best Value
For users
A user may encounter an individual post becoming unavailable, a URL being restricted, an account suspension, or content being unavailable in India but accessible elsewhere. Those outcomes are not identical. The available sources do not establish a uniform notice or appeal process for every action routed through Sahyog, so users should not assume they will always receive the underlying government notice directly or have the same route to challenge each restriction.
The larger issue is accountability: whether a user or platform can learn why material was restricted, identify the official and statutory basis, preserve evidence, and obtain meaningful review. A central portal may improve traceability, but those protections depend on the rules and practice governing the underlying notice.
What to watch in the appeal
- The Centre’s response to the division bench’s notice and any further hearings or interim orders.
- Whether the bench affirms, narrows or revisits the single judge’s reading of Section 79(3)(b) and Rule 3(1)(d).
- How the court distinguishes a notice concerning specific information from a formal Section 69A blocking order.
- Whether later proceedings or rule changes clarify notice standards, disclosure and review for users and intermediaries.
The current text of the 2021 Rules and amendments is available on the MeitY rules page. Any later appellate outcome or amendment could change how the dispute should be described.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →
