Edition 34: SC stays challenges to Section 79(3)(b) content takedown regime
This order was issued as the apex court heard the Centre's transfer petition to transfer X's appeal pending before Karnataka HC along with Kunal Kamra's writ petition from Bombay HC.
The Supreme Court stayed X’s (formerly Twitter) challenge to the single judge’s order which dismissed its petition challenging the government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act and Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules to issue content takedown notices and the legality of the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre’s (I4C) Sahyog portal that was created to “streamline” such notices.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymala Bagchi and V. Mohana issued the stay order on July 22 as it heard the Centre’s petition to transfer these four cases to the apex court. The matter will next be heard on August 10.
In its transfer petition, the Centre has also asked the top court to tag these cases with its own pending challenge to the Bombay High Court’s judgement that struck down the the fact-check unit amendment of the IT Rules.
X’s appeal, that challenged a single-judge’s judgement dismissing the company’s petition against this content takedown regime, is still pending before a division bench of the Karnataka High Court.
Apart from X’s writ appeal, the Centre has sought the transfer of similar petitions filed by comedian Kunal Kamra and senior advocate Harish Jagtiani in 2025 that are pending before the Bombay High Court. The fourth case is Digipub Foundation’s appeal before the Karnataka High Court that challenges Justice M. Nagaprasanna’s order dismissing Digipub’s intervention application filed in X’s original lawsuit.
The Centre has submitted that all four cases challenge “identical provisions” of the IT Rules, 2021, raise “identical questions” and seek “identical” “reliefs”. It said that that they challenge the constitutional validity of Rule 3(1)(d) and the creation of Sahyog portal, and want the courts to rule that Section 79(3)(b) cannot be used to issue content takedown orders.
The Tech Trace has reviewed the Centre’s petition.
‘High courts interpreted the Shreya Singhal judgement differently; avoid parallel adjudication,’ says Centre
The Centre has argued that with respect to Rule 3(1)(d) (content takedown ‘intimations’) and Rule 3(1)(b)(v) (fact-check unit amendment), the Karnataka High Court and Bombay High Court have taken opposing views depending on their judicial interpretation of the Supreme Court’s 2015 Shreya Singhal judgement.
While the Karnataka High Court upheld the validity of Rule 3(1)(d) on the basis of the Shreya Singhal judgement, the Bombay High Court declared Rule 3(1)(b)(v) unconstitutional citing the same judgement, the Centre argued.
“Given these different judicial interpretations on the applicability of Shreya Singhal to the 2021 Rules by two hon’ble high courts. Accordingly in view of the mutually contradictory legal view taken by two different high courts, it would be just and necessary that this hon’ble court decides all issues arising in the said petitions so that an authoritative and final view in this regard is laid down [sic],” the Centre said in its petition.
To be sure, the two courts interpreted the Shreya Singhal judgement for two different clauses of IT Rules that have two differing sets of consequences:
Rule 3(1)(b) relates to the kind of content that users must not upload. The struck down amendment to Rule 3(1)(b)(v) in particular prohibits uploading information about the central government, which a government-run fact-check unit identifies as false.
Rule 3(1)(d) lays down the process by which intermediaries are supposed to remove illegal content on receipt of “actual knowledge”, that is, a court order or order from a government/law enforcement agency.
The two provisions thus answer two completely different questions — Rule 3(1)(b) answers “what” kind of content should not be uploaded while Rule 3(1)(d) provides for “how” the content in violation of Rule 3(1)(b) is to be removed.
The Centre argued that since the IT Rules, 2021, apply across India, a “uniform authoritative adjudication” from the Supreme Court would “avoid uncertainty” about the operation of IT Rules throughout India and “save judicial time and resources”.
It said that “divergent” orders from different high courts could “create serious administrative and legal uncertainty” as it affects citizens’ fundamental rights, intermediaries’ obligations, and the Centre’s regulatory authority.
The Centre said that “co-existence of two conflicting precedents” creates “uncertainty in law” that leaves intermediaries, content creators and citizens at large “without a uniform understanding of the constitutional limits on the regulation of online speech”.
The central government wants the petitions and appeals transferred “to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, conflicting interim and final orders, duplication of pleadings and inconsistent interpretation of a central legislation concerning fundamental rights of a vulnerable class of persons across India”.
The Centre also wants to safeguard itself from future petitions in different high courts and bring them all to the apex court from the get-go. It has also speculated that more petitions are likely to be filed challenging the validity of the IT Rules before different high courts and by different stakeholders. “[I]n the interest of uniformity and to ovoid divergence of views of different High Courts, the same maybe
‘Rule 3(1)(d) challenges rely heavily on challenged fact-check judgement’
The Centre said that the four cases challenging the constitutionality of Rule 3(1)(d) and Sahyog cited reasons “identical” to those cited in Kunal Kamra’s plea challenging the fact-check unit amendment in the Bombay High Court.
It said that all the Section 79(3)(b) cases “extensively relied” on the fact-check unit judgement of the Bombay High Court that the Centre has already challenged. Thus, the apex court’s eventual judgement in the fact-check unit case will directly affect these four cases as well, the government effectively submitted in its petition.
To be sure, while the Centre’s fact-check unit challenge was filed in December 2024, the apex court issued notice only on March 10, 2026, but did not stay the Bombay High Court’s judgement. (Read details of the Centre’s special leave petition filed in December 2024 here.)
“The End”