In Karnataka HC's rejection of X plea against Sahyog, 3 red lines for social media, Pg 17.

Key Highlights:

• The Karnataka High Court rejected X's plea against the Central Government's Sahyog portal, affirming the need to regulate social media content in India.
• The court emphasized that social media platforms must adhere to Indian laws and cannot operate with unchecked freedom.
• Between October 2024 and April 2025, the government issued 130 content takedown notices through Sahyog to platforms like Google, YouTube, Amazon and Microsoft.
• The High Court stated the Shreya Singhal judgement of 2015 cannot be applied to current regulatory needs due to the evolution of IT rules.

Detailed Insights:

• The court underscored that regulation of information is a historical norm, adapting with technological advancements from messengers to modern social media.
• Sahyog portal is viewed as a collaborative tool between citizens and social media intermediaries to combat cybercrime, thus serving public good.
• Section 79 (3) (b) of the IT Act, 2000 is the basis for the government's blocking orders, which X challenged, claiming it creates an unlawful censorship regime.
• The court noted that social media platforms cannot consider India as a mere playground and must be accountable under Indian laws.
• The ruling highlighted that American judicial thought cannot be directly applied to the Indian context due to differences in constitutional and legal frameworks.
• The 2021 IT Rules require a fresh interpretation, distinct from precedents set by the Shreya Singhal judgement, which addressed the regulatory landscape of 2011.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Sahyog Portal: A platform facilitating cooperation between the government, citizens, and social media intermediaries to combat cybercrime.
• Section 79 of IT Act: Defines the conditions under which intermediaries are exempted from liability for third-party content.
• Shreya Singhal Judgement: A 2015 Supreme Court ruling that struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, protecting online free speech.