Karnataka HC’s order in X case exemplifies sheer judicial indiscipline
The HC’s order reflects a conspicuous judicial attempt to dilute the settled precedent in Shreya Singhal (2015), privileging restriction over the enhancement of free expression.
Zain Haider
12 October 2025
ON SEPTEMBER 24, 2025, THE KARNATAKA HC while hearing X Corp v. Union of India & Ors., upheld the Union government’s authority to issue “takedown” orders under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’), read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology Intermediary Rules, 2021 (‘IT Rules’). In doing so, the High Court effectively read down the Supreme Court’s well-reasoned decision in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India—a 2015 landmark judgement in India’s free speech jurisprudence.
The High Court’s order is troubling not only on its merits but also because it reflects a conspicuous judicial attempt to dilute a settled precedent, privileging restriction over the enhancement of free expression—an inversion of constitutional commitment to deliberative democracy.
Rule 3(b) of the IT Rules, 2021, is a colorable provision, directly contrary to Shreya Singhal
In Shreya Singhal, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, declaring it unconstitutional for violating the fundamental right to free speech. The Supreme Court held that the section was vague, overbroad, and failed to distinguish between protected speech—such as discussion and advocacy—and punishable speech, like incitement to violence. In contrast, the Supreme Court upheld Section 69A, which enables the blocking of content, observing that it was “a narrowly drawn provision with several safeguards.” The Supreme Court’s validation of the provision was explicitly contingent upon the government’s strict compliance with the procedural safeguards outlined in the Blocking Rules, 2009.
In doing so, the High Court effectively read down the Supreme Court’s well-reasoned decision in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.
However, in X Corp’s case, the Karnataka High Court upheld the constitutionality of the Sahyog Portal, which was created to automate notices to intermediaries to remove unlawful online content, effectively circumventing the procedures and safeguards built into Section 69A. This parallel blocking mechanism, exercised by the Union of India under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act read with Rule 3(b) of the 2021 Rules, constitutes a dubious and colourable exercise of power. Put differently, by relying on these provisions, the government appears to contravene the principle that what cannot be done directly can be done indirectly.