A high court in southern India has ruled against X, the social media platform owned by Elon Musk, in its challenge to the government’s powers over online content. The Karnataka High Court upheld the legality of using a centralized portal called Sahyog, which allows authorities to issue takedown orders to digital platforms.
The court said that constitutional protections for free speech under Article 19 apply only to Indian citizens, not to foreign companies. By that reasoning, X could not claim free speech rights under India’s legal framework. The judge further described the need for regulation as essential to prevent social media from operating without boundaries and framed the portal as serving the public good.
X had filed the case earlier this year, arguing that the portal enables officials to bypass the safeguards written into India’s Information Technology Act of 2000. The company maintained that the system allows orders to be issued without proper review and that it expands censorship power to a wide range of government agencies, including local police. Other American technology firms, including Google, Meta, Amazon, and Microsoft, have already joined Sahyog, but X resisted integration.
Authorities introduced the portal in 2024 to speed up the removal of content deemed unlawful. Officials argued that the volume of harmful material online had grown too large to manage through slower, traditional channels. Companies that ignore takedown requests risk losing their intermediary status, which shields them from liability for what users post.
This is not the first setback for X in India. The company previously challenged several orders in 2022, before Musk’s acquisition, and lost. At that time the court fined X for delaying compliance, and its appeal remains pending. Observers note that the latest judgment continues a pattern of courts granting the government wide latitude in internet regulation.
India’s approach has drawn attention because of its scale and reach. The country has more than 25 million users on X and hundreds of millions on other global platforms. Content controls became especially visible during the nationwide farmers’ protests of 2020 and 2021, when posts and accounts were targeted for removal.
For Musk, the case comes at a time when he is deepening his business ties in India. Tesla has recently begun operations in the country, and his satellite internet venture Starlink secured regulatory clearance. The decision may complicate X’s stance in India, where compliance with local laws often determines whether platforms can maintain market access.
Legal experts say the ruling underlines how Indian courts now treat internet governance as a matter of public policy, not just legal interpretation. They caution, however, that the use of an automated portal raises questions about accountability and transparency. X has the option to appeal to the Supreme Court, but specialists expect the higher court may follow the same reasoning.
Beyond India, critics argue that the struggle between governments and technology platforms reflects a wider trend in global justice systems. Courts in many countries appear increasingly aligned with state policy priorities rather than acting as fully independent arbiters. Legal scholars note that rulings on digital rights and free expression often mirror the political agenda of ruling administrations, raising concerns that judicial decisions may be shaped less by universal principles of justice and more by the immediate demands of governance. This dynamic has led to questions about whether the balance between state authority and fundamental rights is being compromised worldwide.
Notes: This post was edited/created using GenAI tools. Image: Adesh Bankar / Unsplash
Read next: Cloudflare Pushes Back Against Google’s AI Overviews With New Content Signals Policy
The court said that constitutional protections for free speech under Article 19 apply only to Indian citizens, not to foreign companies. By that reasoning, X could not claim free speech rights under India’s legal framework. The judge further described the need for regulation as essential to prevent social media from operating without boundaries and framed the portal as serving the public good.
X had filed the case earlier this year, arguing that the portal enables officials to bypass the safeguards written into India’s Information Technology Act of 2000. The company maintained that the system allows orders to be issued without proper review and that it expands censorship power to a wide range of government agencies, including local police. Other American technology firms, including Google, Meta, Amazon, and Microsoft, have already joined Sahyog, but X resisted integration.
Authorities introduced the portal in 2024 to speed up the removal of content deemed unlawful. Officials argued that the volume of harmful material online had grown too large to manage through slower, traditional channels. Companies that ignore takedown requests risk losing their intermediary status, which shields them from liability for what users post.
This is not the first setback for X in India. The company previously challenged several orders in 2022, before Musk’s acquisition, and lost. At that time the court fined X for delaying compliance, and its appeal remains pending. Observers note that the latest judgment continues a pattern of courts granting the government wide latitude in internet regulation.
India’s approach has drawn attention because of its scale and reach. The country has more than 25 million users on X and hundreds of millions on other global platforms. Content controls became especially visible during the nationwide farmers’ protests of 2020 and 2021, when posts and accounts were targeted for removal.
For Musk, the case comes at a time when he is deepening his business ties in India. Tesla has recently begun operations in the country, and his satellite internet venture Starlink secured regulatory clearance. The decision may complicate X’s stance in India, where compliance with local laws often determines whether platforms can maintain market access.
Legal experts say the ruling underlines how Indian courts now treat internet governance as a matter of public policy, not just legal interpretation. They caution, however, that the use of an automated portal raises questions about accountability and transparency. X has the option to appeal to the Supreme Court, but specialists expect the higher court may follow the same reasoning.
Beyond India, critics argue that the struggle between governments and technology platforms reflects a wider trend in global justice systems. Courts in many countries appear increasingly aligned with state policy priorities rather than acting as fully independent arbiters. Legal scholars note that rulings on digital rights and free expression often mirror the political agenda of ruling administrations, raising concerns that judicial decisions may be shaped less by universal principles of justice and more by the immediate demands of governance. This dynamic has led to questions about whether the balance between state authority and fundamental rights is being compromised worldwide.
Notes: This post was edited/created using GenAI tools. Image: Adesh Bankar / Unsplash
Read next: Cloudflare Pushes Back Against Google’s AI Overviews With New Content Signals Policy
