Overview

• Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that social media cannot exist in a state of “anarchic freedom” and that regulating online content is necessary to preserve order and dignity.
• The Sahyog portal was upheld as a lawful administrative instrument and an “instrument of public good” that streamlines takedown notices under Section 79(3)(b) and the 2021 IT Rules.
• The bench affirmed that intermediaries operating in India risk the loss of safe-harbour protections if they ignore takedown notices, rejecting X’s claim that Sahyog circumvents Section 69A safeguards.
• The judgment noted that X complies with takedown regimes in the United States yet resisted comparable directions in India, calling this stance indefensible.
• X’s petition followed multiple notices, including Railway Ministry orders tied to posts about the New Delhi station stampede, as the government framed Sahyog as a tool to curb unlawful online content.