UPSC CURRENT AFFAIRS – 30th March 2025
Why has X sued the government over SAHYOG?
Why in News?
- Social media platform X (formerly Twitter) has filed a petition in the Karnataka High Court challenging the Union Government’s SAHYOG portal, which it describes as a “censorship portal.”
- X argues that SAHYOG violates constitutional rights and the legal framework of content takedown under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
What is the SAHYOG Portal?
- A government-run platform developed by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and MeitY to automate takedown notices to internet intermediaries.
- It enables law enforcement and government agencies to:
- Flag content under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act.
- Request removal or disabling of access to information allegedly used in committing “unlawful acts.”
- Originated from a Delhi High Court case demanding real-time cooperation between platforms and police in urgent cases (e.g., child safety).
Legal Framework
🔹 Section 79 of the IT Act (Safe Harbour Provision)
- Section 79(1): Grants intermediaries (like X, Facebook, YouTube) immunity from liability for user-generated content.
- Section 79(3)(b): This immunity is revoked if:
- The intermediary fails to act on being informed by the government that certain content is being used unlawfully.
- ⚠️ Issue: No judicial or procedural safeguards are required before issuing takedown notices under this section.
🔹 Section 69A of the IT Act (Blocking Powers)
- Empowers the government to block public access to information under specific grounds:
- Sovereignty, national security, public order, etc.
- Requires adherence to IT Blocking Rules, 2009, including:
- Recorded reasons
- Opportunity for hearing
- Oversight by a committee
- Shreya Singhal Judgment (2015): Upheld Section 69A but struck down Section 66A; emphasized due process and user rights.
What Is X Arguing?
- The government is bypassing the limited safeguards of Section 69A by using Section 79(3)(b) to issue de facto content removal orders.
- This transforms the “notice-based due diligence system” into a covert censorship mechanism.
- Claims SAHYOG enables arbitrary and opaque takedowns without legal basis or transparency.
- Notes that 30% of MHA’s takedown notices to X target posts involving Union Ministers and agencies — indicating potential abuse of power.
Broader Concerns Raised by Civil Society and Legal Experts
- Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF):
- Section 79 was meant for liability regulation, not content governance.
- SAHYOG undermines basic safeguards and transparency norms.
- Legal scholars argue:
- Social media firms lack strong incentives to challenge vague or overbroad government orders.
- The system tilts power in favour of the state, threatening freedom of expression and digital rights.
Government's Response
- Denies that SAHYOG amounts to censorship.
- Argues:
- Takedown notices under Section 79 are not equivalent to blocking orders.
- Non-compliance only results in removal of safe harbour, not forced deletion.
- Asserts that most major platforms (Meta, Google) have cooperated with SAHYOG.
Analytical Angle
- Governance vs. Free Speech
- Striking a balance between law enforcement needs and citizen’s right to free expression is crucial in a democracy.
- Lack of due process can lead to arbitrary censorship under the garb of legal compliance.
- Rule of Law and Due Process
- Content blocking should follow procedural fairness, judicial oversight, and user rights—principles affirmed in Shreya Singhal (2015).
- SAHYOG may be bypassing these safeguards, leading to a backdoor censorship regime.
- Digital Constitutionalism
- The case raises questions about how constitutional principles apply in the digital age, particularly:
- Right to freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a))
- Reasonable restrictions (Article 19(2))
- Need for a Digital Bill of Rights?
- The case raises questions about how constitutional principles apply in the digital age, particularly:
Conclusion
The legal challenge to the SAHYOG portal marks a crucial test case in India’s evolving digital governance landscape. It brings into focus the tensions between security, state control, and fundamental rights in cyberspace. Upholding transparency, accountability, and constitutional safeguards is essential as India navigates content regulation in the era of algorithmic governance and platform power.
3rd UN conference on landlocked countries
UPSC CURRENT AFFAIRS – 08th August 2025 Home / 3rd UN conference on landlocked countries Why in News? At the
Issue of soapstone mining in Uttarakhand’s Bageshwar
UPSC CURRENT AFFAIRS – 08th August 2025 Home / Issue of soapstone mining in Uttarakhand’s Bageshwar Why in News? Unregulated
Groundwater Pollution in India – A Silent Public Health Emergency
UPSC CURRENT AFFAIRS – 08th August 2025 Home / Groundwater Pollution in India – A Silent Public Health Emergency Why
Universal banking- need and impact
UPSC CURRENT AFFAIRS – 08th August 2025 Home / Universal banking- need and impact Why in News? The Reserve Bank
India’s “Goldilocks” Economy: A Critical Appraisal
UPSC CURRENT AFFAIRS – 08th August 2025 Home / India’s “Goldilocks” Economy: A Critical Appraisal Why in News? The Finance
U.S.-India Trade Dispute: Trump’s 50% Tariffs and India’s Oil Imports from Russia
UPSC CURRENT AFFAIRS – 07th August 2025 Home / U.S.-India Trade Dispute: Trump’s 50% Tariffs and India’s Oil Imports from
Eco-Friendly Solution to Teak Pest Crisis: KFRI’s HpNPV Technology
UPSC CURRENT AFFAIRS – 07th August 2025 Home / Eco-Friendly Solution to Teak Pest Crisis: KFRI’s HpNPV Technology Why in
New Species of Non-Venomous Rain Snake Discovered in Mizoram
UPSC CURRENT AFFAIRS – 07th August 2025 Home / New Species of Non-Venomous Rain Snake Discovered in Mizoram Why in
Your article helped me a lot, is there any more related content? Thanks!