In News:

In a significant development shaping India’s digital governance framework, the Centre has defended its expanded use of Section 79 of the Information Technology Act and the Sahyog Portal to compel online intermediaries—including social media platforms—to remove or disable unlawful content. The debate, currently before the Karnataka High Court, arises from a challenge by platform X (formerly Twitter), which terms the Sahyog Portal a "censorship portal."

Safe Harbour vs. Government Oversight: The Legal Framework

Section 79 of the IT Act grants “safe harbour” protection to intermediaries from liability over third-party content, provided they act upon government takedown notices. However, failure to comply may lead to the withdrawal of this immunity. By contrast, Section 69A empowers the government to block content under specific grounds such as national security, public order, or foreign relations, in line with Article 19(2) of the Constitution, and backed by procedural safeguards.

Platform X argues that the Centre is bypassing Section 69A’s narrower and more legally constrained provisions by issuing de facto blocking orders under Section 79, without adequate procedural checks. This, it contends, infringes upon digital freedom of expression.

Sahyog Portal and the Government's Rationale

The Sahyog Portal, developed under the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) of the Ministry of Home Affairs, has onboarded 38 intermediaries as of March 2025—including Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Telegram, and YouTube. Meta has allowed API-based integration, while X has refused, citing legal overreach.

Defending its stance, the government argues that algorithmic content curation systems—unlike traditional editorial processes—operate at unprecedented speed and scale, without human oversight or transparency. These systems can amplify harmful or misleading content, targeting users individually in ways that traditional media cannot. Moreover, the anonymity and pseudonymity offered by online platforms, along with encrypted messaging, encourage unaccountable and extreme speech, posing serious risks to public order.

Algorithmic Curation vs. Traditional Editorial Control

The government contends that in traditional media, editors and broadcasters act as gatekeepers, ensuring a degree of content quality and moderation. Social media algorithms, however, lack such discretion, often functioning without clear standards, and thereby require regulatory intervention distinct from that applied to conventional media.

This foundational difference, the government argues, justifies a broader interpretive scope under Section 79 to address a wider class of “unlawful content” that may not directly fall under the remit of Section 69A but still demands intervention.

Balancing Freedom of Speech with Public Interest

At the heart of the issue lies the constitutional balancing of free speech (Article 19(1)(a)) with reasonable restrictions (Article 19(2)). While Section 69A aligns with specific constitutional limitations, the government argues that a broader net under Section 79 is needed to tackle content harmful to national security, social harmony, and public order—even if it doesn’t squarely fall within 19(2).

In its submission, the Centre emphasizes that the matter should be viewed not only from the lens of content creators but also from the rights and safety of content recipients and society at large.

Conclusion

This case marks a crucial intersection of digital freedom, platform responsibility, and state regulation. The government's bid to reinterpret Section 79 reflects the growing challenges of algorithmic governance in the digital era. The Karnataka High Court’s verdict will likely set a precedent in defining the limits of intermediary liability, scope of safe harbour, and the State’s role in regulating online content—all central to India’s evolving digital constitutionalism.