X (formerly Twitter) will appeal the Karnataka High Court’s decision upholding the Sahyog Portal last week, the company’s government affairs team said in a statement on its platform. The company says that it is deeply concerned by the court’s decision, stating that this will allow “millions of police officers to issue arbitrary takedown orders” solely based on ‘illegality’. This process operates without a judicial review or due process for the people whose speech the portal curtails.
“X respects and complies with Indian law, but this order fails to address the core constitutional issues in our challenge and is inconsistent with the Bombay High Court’s recent ruling that a similar regime was unconstitutional. 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,” the company notes, stating that it will appeal to uphold free speech.
The case, which was first filed in March, challenged the constitutionality of the portal as well as the government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) and Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Act, 2000, and the IT Rules, 2021, respectively, for issuing content takedown notices. Last week, the court rejected X’s petition and also an intervening application that journalist Abhinandan Sekhri and digital media body DigiPub had filed in this case. Through the Sahyog Portal, the government has sought to automate the process of sending takedown notices. X argued that this process was bypassing the content takedown/blocking process specified under Section 69A of the IT Act.
You can read a breakdown of X’s key arguments here and the government’s arguments here. For the specifics of the intervening application, read this.
Why did the court uphold the Sahyog portal?
Sahyog portal is not an instrument for censorship but rather a facilitation mechanism to streamline communication between authorised agencies and intermediaries, the Karnataka High Court observed in its order in the case. The court’s observation stems from the context the Indian Government had provided for setting up the portal, arguing that both law enforcement agencies and intermediaries had cited challenges in ensuring compliance with content takedowns.
“The recital of the difficulties faced by both law enforcement agencies and intermediaries from lack of reliable contact information to duplication of notices, delays, and absence of accountability— demonstrates the pressing need for a centralised…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
