New Delhi | 4 December  2025: The Dialogue, a Delhi-based public policy think tank, convened a detailed discussion on the implications of the Karnataka High Court’s recent judgment in X v. Union of India and its impact on free speech, due process, and platform governance in India. The discussion featured leading legal and technology experts including Vrinda Bhandari (Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court of India), Sneha Jain (Partner, Saikrishna & Associates), and Aditi Agrawal (technology journalist), and was moderated by Mr. Sachin Dhawan, Deputy Director at The Dialogue.

Mr. Dhawan opened the discussion by situating the judgment within the government’s recent regulatory interventions in the digital landscape. He emphasised that while the case specifically concerns the platform X, its consequences extend to all intermediaries operating in India and to millions of users who depend on these platforms to participate in the digital public sphere.

Providing context to India’s intermediary rules, Ms. Agrawal explained the evolution of Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules 2021 and Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. She highlighted how the inclusion of the phrase “prohibited under any law for the time being in force” has dramatically expanded the scope of takedown demands, enabling authorities to exert broad pressure on platforms. Drawing from her reporting, she illustrated how politically sensitive or reputationally challenging content is increasingly framed as a threat to “public order”, pushing intermediaries to make complex legal judgments under tight deadlines.

Expanding on the legal foundations of safe harbour, Ms. Jain noted that Section 79 is intended to serve as a protective shield for intermediaries—not as an executive tool for issuing takedowns. She cautioned that the growing reliance on Section 79(3)(b) as a de facto blocking mechanism risks creating an opaque, extra-legal parallel to Section 69A of the IT Act, which remains the only constitutionally validated route for blocking online content. She further argued that the High Court’s reasoning on locus standi—denying platforms the ability to challenge unlawful directions—effectively undermines the rights of Indian users who rely on intermediaries to safeguard their freedom of expression.

Offering a constitutional perspective, Ms. Bhandari critiqued the judgment’s treatment of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Shreya Singhal. She expressed concern that the High Court appeared to suggest that technological advancements and new rules had diminished the relevance of Shreya Singhal, despite it being binding precedent. Drawing on comparative jurisprudence, she cautioned against selectively importing foreign liability models without assessing India’s constitutional architecture. She emphasised that weakening platforms’ standing to contest takedown orders ultimately erodes users’ ability to defend their rights under Article 19(1)(a). She also warned that executive-led, portal-driven mechanisms—such as the Sahyog portal—risk becoming centralised, opaque channels for content restriction without adequate transparency or due process safeguards.

In their closing observations, the experts emphasised that safe harbour protection in India is at a critical inflection point, with parallel and opaque takedown pathways increasingly undermining due process. They also cautioned that technological portals lacking clear statutory guardrails risk enabling centralised censorship, while persistent judicial delays continue to deepen uncertainty for both platforms and users.

Key critiques emerging from the discussion include:

The treatment of Section 79(3)(b) as an independent takedown route, creating a parallel mechanism to Section 69A but with weaker safeguards Restrictions on intermediaries’ standing, limiting platforms’ ability to protect users’ Article 19(1)(a) rights.

Selective and inconsistent use of comparative jurisprudence, dismissing rights-enhancing U.S. precedents while invoking others in ways that obscure India’s constitutional structure.