Overview

• Justice M Nagaprasanna held that social media cannot be left in a state of anarchic freedom and that regulation is necessary to preserve order and dignity.
• The court described the Sahyog portal as an instrument of public good conceived under Section 79(3)(b) and Rule 3 of the 2021 IT Rules.
• X’s contention that takedowns must follow Section 69A procedures was rejected, with the court noting that prior frameworks cannot be transplanted onto the current regime.
• The judgment said Article 19 free-speech protections apply to citizens, so a foreign corporate petitioner like X cannot claim sanctuary under that provision.
• The decision leaves X choosing between onboarding and complying with takedown directions or risking loss of safe-harbour and related enforcement under Indian law, even as many other intermediaries have integrated with Sahyog.