{"id":65194,"date":"2025-09-26T11:27:58","date_gmt":"2025-09-26T05:57:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/?p=65194"},"modified":"2025-09-26T11:27:58","modified_gmt":"2025-09-26T05:57:58","slug":"regulation-of-social-media-karnataka-high-court-on-sahyog-portal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/regulation-of-social-media-karnataka-high-court-on-sahyog-portal\/","title":{"rendered":"Regulation of Social Media &#8211; Karnataka High Court on Sahyog Portal"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>Regulation of Social Media Latest News<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Karnataka High Court <\/span><b>rejected social media platform X\u2019s plea<\/b> <b>against <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">the Central Government\u2019s <\/span><b>Sahyog Portal<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> &#8211; a digital mechanism to issue content takedown notices.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Court upheld the <\/span><b>State\u2019s right to regulate social media<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, calling Sahyog an \u201c<\/span><b>instrument of public good<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u201d and a \u201c<\/span><b>beacon of cooperation<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u201d between citizens, state, and platforms.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Court stressed that social media platforms cannot operate in a state of \u201c<\/span><b>anarchic freedom<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.\u201d<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>Sahyog Portal &#8211; A Public Good<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><b>Launched<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: October <\/span><b>2024 <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">by the <\/span><b>Union Home Ministry<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, and maintained by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (<\/span><b>I4C<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">).<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b>Purpose<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: A centralised channel (which connects central agencies, state police, and online intermediaries to combat cybercrime) for issuing takedown notices to intermediaries.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b>Legal basis: <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Section 79(3)(b), <\/span><b>IT Act, 2000<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> \u2013 intermediaries lose \u201csafe harbour protection\u201d if they fail to act upon government notices of unlawful content.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b>Operational data:<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">65 intermediaries and nodal officers onboarded by April 2025.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">130 takedown notices issued (Oct 2024 \u2013 Apr 2025) to platforms including Google, YouTube, Amazon, Microsoft.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>X Corporation\u2019s Challenge<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><b>Claim<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: Sahyog is a \u201c<\/span><b>censorship portal<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u201d creating a parallel, extra-legal content blocking regime.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b>Arguments:<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Section 79(3)(b) notices <\/span><b>bypass <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">stricter procedural <\/span><b>safeguards <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">under <\/span><b>Section 69A <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">IT Act. Unlike Section 69A, notices under Section 79(3)(b) lack transparency, hearing, and written reasoning.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b>Violates Shreya Singhal (2015)<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> judgment, in which the apex court had specified that a takedown order under Section 79(3)(b) &#8211;<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Could only be issued pursuant to a court order or a government notification and\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Must relate to grounds similar to those in Section 69A.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><b>State governments and police<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> issuing notices via Sahyog <\/span><b>expands censorship<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> arbitrarily.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><b>Support<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: Supporting X\u2019s challenge, Digipub (collective of 92 digital publishers) argued that blocking orders through Sahyog threatens media freedom.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>Government\u2019s Defence<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Necessity<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: Social media requires stricter regulation due to <\/span><b>algorithmic amplification and rapid spread of harmful content.<\/b><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>\u2018Safe harbour\u2019 is not absolute<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: It is a statutory privilege conditional upon due diligence.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Separation of powers<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: Section 79(3)(b) and Section 69A operate independently.<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><b>Section 79(3)(b):<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Failure to comply results in loss of safe harbour.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"2\"><b>Section 69A<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: Blocking power on grounds of sovereignty, security, public order.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Efficiency<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: Sahyog is an efficient, transparent mechanism to expedite unlawful content removal.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>X Corp &#8211; a foreign entity<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: Hence, it cannot invoke <\/span><b>Article 19<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> rights (available only to Indian citizens).<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>High Court\u2019s Ruling<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The judgment outlined <\/span><b>three red lines<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> for social media companies &#8211;\u00a0<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Social media cannot remain unregulated.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Companies must comply with the laws of the land.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Past precedents like Shreya Singhal (2015) cannot be used to interpret new regulatory frameworks under IT Rules 2021.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>Key Legal Issues Touched upon by the HC<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><b>Need for regulation:<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The spread of information has always been <\/span><b>regulated across civilizations<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Social media as a \u201cmodern amphitheater of ideas\u201d <\/span><b>cannot exist in anarchic freedom<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Regulation is essential, especially for <\/span><b>offences against women<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> to safeguard the constitutional right to dignity.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b>Regulation of social media is not unique to India<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">, it is a global practice.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><b>Law of the Land &#8211; India is not a playground:<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Platforms cannot operate in India while ignoring its statutory framework.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><b>Liberty is tied to responsibility and accountability.<\/b><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">X complies with the <\/span><b>Take It Down Act in the US <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">but refuses to follow similar takedown orders in India.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">American legal principles cannot be transplanted into the Indian constitutional framework.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><b>Shreya Singhal not applicable &#8211; New law, new interpretation:<\/b>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">X argued that the 2015 Shreya Singhal judgment allowed censorship only via courts or under Section 69A, IT Act.<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Court held &#8211;<\/span>\n<ul>\n<li><b>Shreya Singhal judgment applied to the 2011 IT Rules<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> (now obsolete).<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The 2021 IT Rules are distinct, requiring a new interpretative lens.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><b>Precedents cannot bind evolving regulatory regimes.<\/b><\/li>\n<li><b>Extent of Article 19 of the Indian Constitution<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: It applies only to Indian citizens; X, as a foreign corporation, cannot claim these protections.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>Implications of the HC Ruling<\/b><\/h2>\n<ul style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>For intermediaries: <\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Non-compliance with Sahyog notices may result in the loss of safe harbour protection &#8211; establishing <\/span><b>legal liability<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Digital governance<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: Shows India\u2019s move towards<\/span><b> platform accountability.<\/b><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Cybersecurity<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: Strengthens mechanisms against cybercrime, misinformation, and online harms.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Law and constitution:<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> Reasserts sovereign right to regulate speech, <\/span><b>balancing Article 19(1)(a)<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> \u2013 freedom of Speech with reasonable restrictions.<\/span><\/li>\n<li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><b>Policy relevance<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">: Demonstrates how courts interpret technological evolution in line with national context.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>Conclusion<\/b><\/h2>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The ruling <\/span><b>reaffirms India\u2019s sovereign regulatory authority<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> over digital platforms, emphasizes the balance between free speech and accountability, and calls for <\/span><b>continuous legal adaptation<\/b><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> in line with technological advancements.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><b>Source: <\/b><a href=\"https:\/\/indianexpress.com\/article\/explained\/karnataka-hc-rejection-x-plea-sahyog-red-lines-social-media-10269942\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\"><b>IE<\/b><\/a><b>\u00a0| <\/b><a href=\"https:\/\/indianexpress.com\/article\/explained\/explained-law\/karnataka-hc-sahyog-portal-x-challenge-10269277\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\"><b>IE<\/b><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Karnataka High Court rejected social media platform X\u2019s plea against the Central Government\u2019s Sahyog Portal, and upheld the State\u2019s right to regulate social media.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":19,"featured_media":65207,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[60,2905,22,59],"class_list":{"0":"post-65194","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-upsc-mains-current-affairs","8":"tag-mains-articles","9":"tag-regulation-of-social-media","10":"tag-upsc-current-affairs","11":"tag-upsc-mains-current-affairs","12":"no-featured-image-padding"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65194","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/19"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=65194"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65194\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/65207"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65194"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65194"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/vajiramandravi.com\/current-affairs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65194"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}