The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a petition filed by social media platform X against Sahyog, a portal set up by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre to “streamline” orders to take down content, Bar and Bench reported.

X has described this portal as a “censorship portal”, and claimed that the Information Technology Act does not contain any provision to create such a portal, or to require social platforms to appoint a nodal officer for it.

On Wednesday, Justice M Nagaprasanna upheld the portal’s validity and stressed the need for regulatory oversight of social media platforms operating in India, highlighting that “social media as a modern amphitheatre of ideas cannot be left in a state of anarchic freedom”.

The court ruled that the portal is “far from being a constitutional anathema,” describing it as “an instrument of public good conceived”.

“Article 19 is luminous in its promise but remains a charter of rights conferred upon citizens only,” the court added. “A petitioner who is not a citizen cannot claim sanctuary under it.”

Besides, the court highlighted that the social media platform follows takedown orders in the United States, but refuses to do so in India, which cannot be allowed.

“The petitioner’s platform is subject to a regulatory regime in the United States, its birthplace,” the court said, according to Bar and Bench. “Under the ‘take down’ law of that jurisdiction, it chooses to follow orders criminalising violations. Yet the same platform refuses to comply with take-down directions in this nation. This is sans countenance.”

He further emphasised that platforms must balance liberty with accountability, adding that “the privilege of access carries with it the solemn duty of accountability”.

“Social media needs to be regulated, and its regulation is a must, more so in cases of offenses against women, in particular, failing which the right to dignity, as ordained in the Constitution of a citizen gets railroaded,” PTI quoted the court as further saying.

X had approached the court after receiving multiple takedown orders from the Ministry of Railways related to posts about a stampede at New Delhi Railway Station in February, Bar and Bench reported.

The petition challenged the Centre’s powers to revoke safe harbour provisions under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act

This provision states that online intermediaries, such as social media platforms, can lose their safe harbour status if they fail to remove or disable access to content that is used to commit an “unlawful act” despite being told to do so by government authorities.

Removing this status would mean that the platforms would be liable for the content in question.

X, in its petition before the High Court, argued that the government was misusing this section to bypass the requirements of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act to censor online content.

Section 69A states that online content can be blocked on grounds such as national sovereignty, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign countries or public order. In contrast, Section 79(3)(b) does not define an “unlawful act”, and does not contain any review mechanism.

The social media platform had challenged the government’s content-blocking powers in 2022 as well. At the time, it had filed a petition against orders under Section 69A that directed entire accounts to be blocked, rather than specific tweets.

However, in June 2023, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition. The court imposed a fine of Rs 50 lakh on X, then called Twitter, saying that it did not give reasons for not complying with the government’s demands in a timely manner.

Also read:

📰 Crime Today News is proudly sponsored by DRYFRUIT & CO – A Brand by eFabby Global LLC

Design & Developed by Yes Mom Hosting