Twitter/X Corp 's legal challenge before the Karnataka High Court spotlights illegal take down orders being used as parallel process and a censorship portal

Safeguard

Section 69A (IT Act)

Section 79(3)(b) 

Legal Issue

Designated Officer Requirement

Yes – Blocking orders must be issued by a high-ranking Designated Officer (Joint Secretary or higher).

No – No centralized oversight, allowing diverse agencies including local police to issue blocking orders.

This safeguard is vital to prevent misuse of authority and maintain consistent oversight.

Written Justification for Blocking

Yes – Detailed reasons must be recorded in writing and are subject to judicial scrutiny. However, this is often not done in practice.

No – Orders can be issued without explicit written justification, making judicial oversight and challenge difficult.

Written justification enables judicial scrutiny; absence under Section 79(3)(b) obstructs transparency and accountability.

Pre-Decisional Hearing for Intermediary & Originator

Yes – Intermediaries and originators must be given notice and a chance to respond before blocking. However, this is often not done in practice.

No – No opportunity for intermediaries or content originators to be heard before blocking orders are executed.

The pre-decisional hearing safeguard under Section 69A aligns with principles of natural justice; its absence violates due process.

Review by Independent Committee

Yes – An independent Review Committee reviews all orders regularly (every two months).

No – Absence of any mandated review committee or independent oversight mechanism.

Regular independent review ensures ongoing validity and prevents misuse, a safeguard deemed essential by the Supreme Court.

Blocking Limited to Article 19(2) Grounds

Yes – Blocking is strictly restricted to clearly defined grounds under Article 19(2), e.g., national security, public order, etc.

No – Vaguely allows blocking for any broadly-defined 'unlawful act', leading to arbitrary and wide-ranging censorship.

Strict adherence to Article 19(2) ensures blocking is narrowly tailored; deviation under Section 79(3)(b) violates constitutional safeguards.

Limited Scope of Blocking Authority

Yes – Only the Central Government (via the Designated Officer) can issue orders; state entities cannot independently issue blocking orders.

No – Empowers multiple ministries, state governments, and even local police, vastly increasing censorship power.

Expanding blocking powers to multiple agencies dilutes responsibility, leading to widespread and uncontrolled censorship.

Emergency Blocking Review

Yes – Emergency blocking orders must undergo review within 48 hours to assess validity and necessity.

No – No mandatory review, allowing indefinite blocking without further checks.

Emergency review safeguards prevent indefinite censorship without accountability; its absence undermines due process.

Transparency and Confidentiality Requirements

Yes – Mandates confidentiality while ensuring transparency through oversight mechanisms and judicial accountability. In practice the Blocking Order is sometimes not even shared with the impacted user.

No – Lack of transparency or accountability, orders can be issued secretly without any mandated confidentiality or transparency procedures.

Transparency safeguards provide judicial and public accountability; the lack of transparency mechanisms under Section 79(3)(b) promotes secrecy and misuse.

Issue

Description

Legal issues

Lack of Legal Authority

The ‘Sahyog’ Portal has no legal basis in the IT Act or any other law. Section 69A is the only legal provision for content blocking, and it mandates strict procedural safeguards. The government is misusing Section 79(3)(b) to justify the portal, which does not allow content blocking.

The portal is ultra vires (beyond legal authority) and violates the IT Act and Supreme Court precedent in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (“Shreya Singhal”).

Circumvention of Section 69A Safeguards

Section 69A provides procedural protections such as hearings, review committees, and written justifications. The ‘Sahyog’ Portal bypasses these safeguards, allowing authorities to issue blocking orders without due process.

The portal creates an unauthorized, parallel censorship system that undermines the IT Act and the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shreya Singhal.

Unregulated Expansion of Blocking Powers

Section 69A limits blocking powers to a Designated Officer (Joint Secretary or higher). The ‘Sahyog’ Portal allows ministries, state governments, and even local police to issue blocking orders, leading to widespread, arbitrary censorship.

The decentralized, unchecked use of the portal leads to widespread and arbitrary censorship, violating Article 14 (equal protection of laws) and Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech).

Lack of Transparency & Accountability

Blocking orders issued through the portal are not made public. There is no clarity on who issues them, on what basis, and whether they are reviewed. This secrecy prevents intermediaries and users from challenging decisions.

Lack of transparency and accountability enables secret censorship, violating Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

No Opportunity to Challenge Blocking Orders

Under Section 69A, content providers and intermediaries must be given an opportunity to be heard before content is blocked. The ‘Sahyog’ Portal provides no such notice or opportunity for appeal.

Blocking content without prior notice or opportunity for appeal violates principles of natural justice and due process under Articles 14 and 21.

No Post-Decisional Review

Blocking orders issued via the ‘Sahyog’ Portal remain indefinitely without periodic review, unlike Section 69A, which requires regular oversight by a Review Committee.

Permanent blocking without review is unconstitutional and undermines judicial oversight, violating procedural safeguards mandated by the Supreme Court.

Forced Participation of Intermediaries

The MHA has demanded that X Corp. appoint a 'Nodal Officer' to comply with portal requests, even though this requirement has no legal basis in the IT Act. This forces private companies to comply with an unconstitutional system.

Forcing intermediaries to comply with an illegal censorship system amounts to coercion and an abuse of power.

Expands Censorship Beyond National Security Concerns

Section 69A allows blocking only for reasons listed in Article 19(2) (e.g., national security, public order). The ‘Sahyog’ Portal enables content blocking for vague and undefined 'unlawful acts,' potentially censoring dissent and journalism.

This overreach violates freedom of expression protections and facilitates arbitrary censorship without justification.

Violation of Supreme Court's Shreya Singhal Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld Section 69A as constitutional because it contained safeguards. The ‘Sahyog’ Portal ignores these safeguards, violating Shreya Singhal and Article 141 of the Constitution.

The government is defying a binding Supreme Court ruling, violating Article 141 of the Constitution.

Creates an Unchecked & Unregulated Censorship Regime

Blocking orders can be issued without judicial review, independent oversight, or transparency. This creates a censorship regime that operates beyond constitutional boundaries, violating Articles 14, 19, and 21.

This undermines fundamental rights, encourages abuse, and constitutes a colourable exercise of power (disguising an unconstitutional purpose as lawful action).