X cannot cite safe harbour provision to refuse joining Sahyog portal: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court on Friday observed that social media platform X cannot cite the existing safe harbour provision under the Information Technology Act to refuse joining the Sahyog portal set up by the Union government, the Hindustan Times reported.

The safe harbour provision under Section 79(3)(b) of the Act states that online intermediaries, such as social media platforms, can lose their safe harbour status if they fail to remove or disable access to content that is used to commit an “unlawful act”, despite being told to do so by the authorities.

Removing this status would mean that the platforms would be liable for the content in question.

Sahyog is a portal set up by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre to streamline orders to take down content allegedly being used to commit an unlawful act. The portal was launched in 2024.

X had previously described it as a “censorship portal” and claimed that the Information Technology Act does not contain any provision to create such a portal, or to require social platforms to appoint a nodal officer for it.

On Friday, a High Court bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma were hearing a petition to trace a missing boy.

In September 2024, the High Court had expanded the scope of the case amid delays by social media intermediaries in sharing information with law enforcement agencies in the matter, the Hindustan Times reported. Notices had been issued seeking their standard operating procedures.

In April 2025, the Union government told the High Court that 65 intermediaries had joined the Sahyog Portal, except X. The social media platform had also sought discharge from the case.

During the hearing on Friday, the High Court said that investigative agencies could not be expected to approach several social media platforms individually, especially in urgent situations, the newspaper reported.

It would be impractical for investigating officers from different police stations across the country to access 30 to 40 such platforms to obtain information, it added.

The High Court also said that several countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, had centralised portals for sharing such data.

“The existing safe harbour provisions in the opinion of this court do not give you protection to that extent that you can refuse and say that in the case of crimes we cannot come on board,” the Hindustan Times quoted the bench telling the counsel representing X.

The High Court was responding to X’s argument that the present petition, which concerned tracing a missing boy, had limited scope and therefore issues related to onboarding intermediaries onto the Sahyog portal could not be examined within it.

The counsel for the social media platform also cited an earlier stand taken by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre, which had described onboarding onto the portal as merely an “administrative measure”.

X also argued that the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre had never indicated any difficulty in obtaining data through its resource portal or in making requests. It had only stated that such requests were occasionally objected to by the platforms, the counsel said.

The social media platform added that the Sahyog portal had been functioning effectively.

It also noted similar matters pending before several courts, including two petitions challenging the Karnataka High Court’s judgement about the portal in September and two pleas before the Bombay High Court questioning its validity.

In September, the Karnataka High Court had dismissed X’s challenge to the portal and stressed the need for regulatory oversight of social media platforms operating in India. X described the order as “deeply concerned”, adding that it would appeal against it to “defend free expression”.

In the Delhi High Court on Friday, the bench adjourned the matter based on a request from the counsel for the Union government. The bench granted the Union government time to make submissions on X’s discharge application.

X had challenged the government’s content-blocking powers in 2022 as well. At the time, it had filed a petition against orders under Section 69A that directed entire accounts to be blocked, rather than specific tweets.

Under Section 69A of the Act, an authorised personnel in the Union government, not below the rank of a joint secretary, can send content removal orders to social media platforms. The provision allows the Union government to issue content-blocking orders to online intermediaries if the content is deemed a threat to national security, sovereignty or public order.

Kunal Kamra challenges legality of Sahyog portal, IT rules

Comedian Kunal Kamra has moved the Bombay High Court challenging the validity of the Sahyog portal, describing it as an “unconstitutional and unreasonable” assault on the freedom of speech, The Hindu reported on Friday.

The petition, filed earlier this week, has also challenged some provisions of the Information Technology Rules that were amended in October 2025.

“Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules and the Sahyog portal are also ex facie unconstitutional, as they enable the blocking or takedown of information on internet platforms on wholly vague grounds,” the newspaper quoted Kamra as having argued in the petition.

Rule 3(1)(d) mandates that internet intermediaries must remove or disable access to unlawful content within a specified timeframe upon being informed about it through a court order or a notification from the government.

Kamra said that the continued functioning of the Sahyog portal had a “profound and deeply prejudicial impact on the exercise of key fundamental rights”, The Hindu reported.

He added: “It affects both the ability of the citizens to talk freely and express themselves, and also affects the free flow of information in our democracy”.

Also read: Sahyog portal case offers clear view of government’s expanding role in regulating online content