Foreign firms can't claim free speech right available to citizens under Article 19: Karnataka HC in X Corp verdict

Foreign companies cannot invoke fundamental right of free speech under Article 19 of the Constitution, the Karnataka High Court made it clear in its judgment dismissing X Corp’s petition challenging the Union government’s Sahyog blocking portal and related notifications [X Corp Vs Union of India].

Such rights are reserved exclusively for citizens of India and intermediaries like X Corp must comply with the regulatory framework if they wish to operate in the country, Justice M Nagaprasanna ruled.

“A company which is faceless in India, cannot on the basis of baseless allegations, come forward and challenge the laws of the nation. It is reciprocal, as it is unimaginable, that an entity which has no foothold in the United States, can challenge the laws of the United States in the Courts of the United States, except in certain circumstances. In the same manner, X Corp being faceless in the nation, operating as an intermediary, cannot challenge any of the statutes of the nation under the umbrage of Article 19. Its presence is not there. It cannot raise a challenge to the statutes regulating social media. If it wants to operate in the nation, it has to abide by the laws, as simple as that,” the Court said.

X Corp had moved the Court contending that the Sahyog portal enables blocking orders to be issued under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act), thereby circumventing the due process mandated under Section 69A of the IT Act and the Shreya Singhal ruling.

The petition was filed following multiple takedown orders issued by the Ministry of Railways after posts about a recent stampede at New Delhi Railway Station.

X sought a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act does not authorise content blocking.

The Court was unequivocal that Article 19 rights cannot be extended to foreigners.

“Article 19 is restricted only to citizens of this country and in the garb of projecting Articles 14 and 21, a foreigner cannot seek rights under Article 19,” Justice Nagaprasanna held.

While X Corp argued that statutory rights could be advanced under Article 14, the Court rejected the attempt, holding:

“Ventilating statutory rights or grievances concerning the statute, seeking to challenge the statutes of the nation, on the foundation of Article 19, cannot be countenanced.”

The judgment reaffirmed that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) is subject to reasonable restrictions.

Referring to the first amendment to the Constitution, the Court emphasised that liberty and restraint must co-exist.

“The guarantees that secure liberty to the citizen are not absolute, they are accompanied by the tempering hand of reasonable restriction,” it said

The Bench observed that while the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India had read down Section 79 of the Information Technology Act and upheld Section 69A, the regulatory architecture still provides clear avenues for blocking orders consistent with constitutional limitations.

Justice Nagaprasanna also analysed regulatory regimes in India and abroad.

Tracing communication from postal riders to social media platforms, he underlined that no medium had ever been beyond the reach of law.

“From the press of the colonial era, to the digital platforms today, there has always existed a framework of law to temper liberty with responsibility, freedom with accountability,” the Court observed.

After examining American law, the Court noted that X Corp’s argument for untrammelled free speech was misplaced.

“The record… reveals a different story – that even in its home land the spread of information has never been free from the tempering hand of law,” it said

The Court rejected X Corp’s challenge to Rule 3(1)(d) of the Intermediary Guidelines, 2021, which authorises government departments and State police officers to issue takedown notices. While the company argued this went beyond the IT Act, the Court held that the rule formed part of the statutory framework and was not unconstitutional.

The Sahyog portal, through which such orders are communicated, was also upheld as a legitimate instrument to enforce statutory provisions.

"The Sahyog Portal, far from being a constitutional anathema, is in truth an instrument of public good. Conceived under the authority of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 Rules, it stands as a beacon of cooperation between citizen and intermediary, a mechanism through which the State endeavours to combat the growing menace of cybercrime. To assail its validity is to misunderstand its purpose; hence, the challenge is without merit," the Court stated.

Rejecting X Corp’s claims of being a neutral intermediary, Justice Nagaprasanna observed:

“The platform has everything to do with the information. Tons and tons of information is on the platform and just one particular information springs up to become popular or unpopular is by the algorithms that the platform deploys.”

This finding, the Court said, showed that X Corp could not escape responsibility by portraying itself as a passive channel for content.

The Karnataka High Court’s judgment thus reaffirmed that foreign intermediaries cannot cloak themselves in rights meant only for Indian citizens. It upheld the government’s blocking framework and directed that companies like X Corp must respect Indian law if they wish to continue operations.

“Social media, as the modern amphitheater of ideas, cannot be left in a state of anarchic freedom. Regulation of information in this domain is neither novel nor unique,” the single-judge stated in conclusion.

In the epilogue, he added:

"The Regulated - the petitioner and the like, is asking the Regulator – the Government of India, to be Regulated at the hands of this Court. This is sans countenance."

[Read Judgment]