On Friday, the Delhi High Court stated that the social media platform X cannot invoke the safe harbour clause under the Information Technology Act to avoid participation in the Sahyog portal established by the Indian government.

According to Section 79(3)(b) of the Act, online intermediaries risk losing their safe harbour protection if they neglect to remove or restrict access to content associated with unlawful activities, even after being notified by authorities.

If this protection is revoked, the platforms would be held accountable for the problematic content.

The Sahyog portal, initiated by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre in 2024, aims to facilitate the removal of content linked to unlawful acts.

X had previously labeled the portal as a 'censorship tool' and argued that the Information Technology Act does not support the creation of such a portal or mandate social media platforms to appoint a nodal officer for compliance.

During the hearing, a bench comprising Justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma was addressing a petition regarding a missing child.

In September 2024, the High Court had broadened the case's scope due to delays from social media intermediaries in providing information to law enforcement, as reported.

In April 2025, the government informed the court that 65 intermediaries had joined the Sahyog Portal, with X being the exception. The platform had also requested to be released from the case.

The High Court remarked that it was unreasonable to expect investigative agencies to contact multiple social media platforms individually, especially in urgent cases.

It emphasized that it would be impractical for officers from various police stations to navigate through 30 to 40 platforms to gather necessary information.

The court noted that several countries, including the US and UK, have centralized systems for data sharing.

The bench conveyed that the current safe harbour provisions do not provide sufficient protection for X to refuse participation in cases involving criminal investigations.

X contended that the petition regarding the missing boy had a narrow focus, thus making it inappropriate to discuss the onboarding of intermediaries to the Sahyog portal.

The platform's counsel also referenced a previous statement from the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre, which characterized the onboarding process as merely administrative.

X further claimed that the Centre had not indicated any issues in obtaining data through its resource portal, only that some requests faced objections from platforms.

The social media company asserted that the Sahyog portal was operating effectively.

It also highlighted ongoing legal challenges in various courts, including two petitions contesting the Karnataka High Court's ruling on the portal and two cases in the Bombay High Court questioning its legitimacy.

In September, the Karnataka High Court dismissed X's challenge against the portal, underscoring the necessity for regulatory oversight of social media platforms in India. X expressed deep concern over the ruling and announced plans to appeal to protect free expression.

In the Delhi High Court on Friday, the bench postponed the proceedings at the request of the Union government's counsel, allowing time for the government to respond to X's discharge application.

X had previously contested the government's content-blocking authority in 2022, filing a petition against orders under Section 69A that mandated the blocking of entire accounts instead of specific tweets.

Section 69A permits authorized personnel in the Union government, at least at the joint secretary level, to issue content removal orders to social media platforms if the content poses a threat to national security, sovereignty, or public order.

Comedian Kunal Kamra has approached the Bombay High Court to contest the legality of the Sahyog portal, labeling it an 'unconstitutional and unreasonable' infringement on free speech.

The petition, submitted earlier this week, also challenges certain amendments to the Information Technology Rules made in October 2025.

Kamra argues that Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules and the Sahyog portal are inherently unconstitutional, as they allow for the removal or disabling of access to information on vague grounds.

Rule 3(1)(d) requires internet intermediaries to remove or restrict access to unlawful content within a specified timeframe upon receiving a court order or government notification.

Kamra asserts that the ongoing operation of the Sahyog portal significantly impacts fundamental rights, affecting citizens' ability to express themselves freely and the flow of information in a democratic society.