Elon Musk’s X Corp moved the Karnataka High Court on Friday in an appeal against a judgment of the court that rejected the social media platform’s challenge to the Central Government’s Sahyog portal and the manner in which takedown orders were issued under Article 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act.
Story continues below this ad
X Corp had expressed its intention to appeal against the decision of the single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dated September 24, 2025.
“We respectfully disagree with the view that we have no right to raise these concerns because of our incorporation abroad—X contributes significantly to public discourse in India and the voice of our users is at the heart of our platform. We will appeal this order to defend free expression,” the social network wrote on its Global Government Affairs handle on September 29.
Story continues below this ad
X Corp also referred to Sahyog as a “censorship portal” early on in the legal proceedings. X Corp maintained that the process for takedown or blocking orders had to be under section 69A of the IT Act, arguing that the orders via Article 79(3)(b) allowed too wide a net to take down content without a judicial process.
However, Justice Nagaprasanna stated in his order that methods of communication had always been subject to regulation. He also ruled against X Corp’s concerns on the Sahyog portal as well as its right to invoke the fundamental right to free speech.
Story continues below this ad
The order stated, “A petitioner who seeks sanctuary under its canopy must be a citizen of the nation failing which the protective embrace of Article 19 cannot be invoked. The Sahyog Portal, far from being constitutional anathema, in its truth is an instrument of public good conceived under Section 79 (3)(b) of the IT Act and Rule 3(d) of the 2021 Rules…it stands as a beacon of cooperation between citizen and intermediary, a mechanism through which the State seeks to combat the growing menace of cyber crime. To assail its validity is to misunderstand its purpose.”
In the appeal, X Corp has argued that the judgment improperly interpreted the Supreme Court case of Shreya Singhal v Union of India, connected with its argument that takedown orders ought to be done only via section 69A. The social media network also objects to the observation of the bench that X Corp did not want to obey the law, stating that they had adhered to 26,641 cases out of 29,118 (or 91 per cent) removal orders. The remainder were cases of URL not being identified, content already deleted etc, it says. The appeal also states that the judgment will allow a large number of police officers and other personnel to take down content they arbitrarily decide is unlawful.
The appeal argues that the IT rule used to apply for takedowns through the Sahyog portal (Rule 3(1)(d)) is unconstitutional, also stating that X Corp right to raise issues does not become invalid because it is a foreign-incorporated company, pointing to its physical address in India, platform provided to Indian citizens, and even central agencies that use it. Raising the spectre of potential misuse of the IT Act if the interpretation in the impugned judgment remained, the appeal states that a Government could use such powers to censor any viewpoint or criticism it does not accept.
The hearing date for X Corp’s appeal has not yet been set.