"None may presume to treat the Indian marketplace as a mere playground where information can be disseminated in defiance of statute or disregard to legality," the judge added.
Published Sep 24, 2025 | 7:59 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 24, 2025 | 7:59 PM
The Karnataka High Court. (Creative Commons)
Synopsis: According to Livelaw, the judge noted: “Social media, as modern amphitheater of ideas, cannot be left in a state of anarchich freedom. Regulation of information in this domain is neither novel nor unique. United States of America regulates it. Every sovereign nation regulates it.”
Karnataka High Court on Wednesday, 24 September, dismissed X Corp’s plea seeking a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act does not confer authority on Union government officers to issue information blocking orders, which can only be issued after following the procedure under Section 69A of the Act, read with IT Rules.
Justice M Nagaprasanna pronounced the verdict.
According to Livelaw, the judge noted: “Social media, as modern amphitheater of ideas, cannot be left in a state of anarchich freedom. Regulation of information in this domain is neither novel nor unique. United States of America regulates it. Every sovereign nation regulates it. And India’s resolve likewise, cannot by any stretch of Constitutional imagination, be branded as unlawful. Unregulated speech under the guise of liberty becomes a license to lawlessness. Regulated speech by contrast, preserves both liberty and order, the twin pillars upon which the democracy must stand. No social media platform in the modern day agora may even seem the semblance of exemption from rigour of discipline of laws of the land.”
“None may presume to treat the Indian marketplace as a mere playground where information can be disseminated in defiance of statute or disregard to legality, and later adopting a posture of detachment or a hands off…The content on social media needs to be regulated and its regulation is a must, more so in cases of offences against women in particular failing which right to dignity as ordained in the Constitution of a citizen gets railroaded. We are a society governed by laws. Order is the architecture of our democracy. Every platform that seeks to operate within the jurisdiction of our nation, which they do must accept that liberty is with responsibility and the privilige of access carries with it the solemn duty of accountability,” the judge added.
On Sahyog portal, the Court said it is far from being constitutional anathema. “In truth it’s an instrument of public good, conceived under the authority of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and Rule 3(b) of the 2021 Rules. It stands as a beacon of cooperation between citizen and the intermediary— a mechanism through which the State endeavors to combat the growing menace of cyber crime. To assail its validity is to misunderstand its purpose. Hence the challenge is without merit.”
(Edited by Sumavarsha, with inputs from Nolan Patrick Pinto)
