Karnataka High Court denies X Corp interim relief in plea against govt's Sahyog portal blocking mechanism

Social media giant X Corp (formerly Twitter) on Thursday told the Karnataka High Court that it fully intends to comply with Indian law, but that there are legal flaws to the new content-blocking mechanism set up by the Central government through its Sahyog portal [X Corp v. Union of India]..Justice M Nagaprasanna was hearing X Corp's petition challenging directives to mandatorily onboard itself onto the Sahyog portal, a platform that allows government agencies to issue content blocking orders to internet intermediaries like X. .The Court today declined to grant X the interim relief it sought after noting the Centre's submission that there is no reason for X Corp to be apprehensive of any coercive action.Justice Nagaprasanna further noted that on March 17, liberty was already given to X to approach the Court if it faced any coercive action.Therefore, there was no need for a further interim order at this stage, the judge said before posting the matter for final hearing on April 24..X has argued that the takedown orders issued through this portal do not adhere to the safeguards mandated by Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). Rather, this mechanism is rooted in Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act.Representing X Corp, Senior Advocate KG Raghavan argued that the only reason why the validity of Section 69A of the IT Act was upheld by the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal case was because it had inbuilt safeguards to be complied with while issuing blocking orders.Even ex-parte blocking orders have to be justified in post-decisional hearings under this provision, he said. He questioned if such safeguards can be given a go-by when the government issues blocking orders under Section 79(3)(b) instead..Raghavan urged the Court to restrain the Centre from taking any coercive action against X in relation to blocking orders unless they are issued in line with Section 69A of the IT Act."The interim prayer is innocuous. It does not affect adversely any concern expressed by the Union of India. The concern of the Union of India is legitimate - no one can say I won’t comply with the laws of this country. If you want to do business in this country, you have to comply. We are all on the same side, that nothing can be done which adversely affects the country...All we are saying is - the law is completely codified in Section 69A of the IT Act," he argued.He added that X Corp also wants to comply with Indian laws, including laws against offensive content and deepfakes, Raghavan added.However, he maintained that content blocking orders cannot be issued only by invoking Section 79(3)(b) as a standalone provision."We are not supporting any unlawful act. We are only on the manner in which power under Section 79(3)(b) is exercised," Raghavan argued..Notably, Section 79(3) says that an internet intermediary would lose its safe harbour protection for unlawful content posted by users on its platform if it fails to take action against such content, despite being informed of the same.Raghavan pointed out that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act was read down in certain respects by the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal case. He added that both Section 79(3) and Section 69A have to be read together.He also opposed the Central government's argument that such findings by the Supreme Court was per incuriam (bad in law for having neglected to consider a binding caselaw or legal provision)..Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General of India Aravind Kamath appeared for the Central government..Central government tells Karnataka High Court that censorship claim by Elon Musk's X is condemnable.[Read Live Coverage]