Edition 5: Digital News Media Body seeks to join X’s Lawsuit against Centre
Digipub argued that takedown notices issued under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act through the I4C’s Sahyog portal set up a parallel blocking mechanism devoid of any safeguards, leading to censorship.
A self-regulatory body representing digital-only news organisations wants to join X’s (formerly Twitter) lawsuit challenging the Indian government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act and the use of the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre’s (I4C) Sahyog portal to issue content takedown notices to intermediaries.
The intervention application, filed in Karnataka High Court earlier this week by Digipub News India Foundation and Abhinandan Sekhri, submits that the parallel “censorship regime” created by the portal and Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act lacks the procedural safeguards of the Section 69A blocking process, censors journalists, denies audiences vital information and narrows the discursive space of democracy. The Tech Trace has seen a copy of the intervention application.
Echoing X’s language that described Sahyog as a “censorship portal”, Digipub and Sekhri argued that Sahyog is an “ultra vires executive action” and “an executive censorship mechanism” that lacks statutory backing, exceeds the remit of Section 69A of the IT Act, breaches safeguards laid down by the apex court in its 2015 Shreya Singhal judgement, and hinges on the vagueness of all “unlawful content”.
They argued that digital news publishers are dependent on intermediaries for dissemination and reporting, and their expression is “vulnerable” to “removal through opaque, extrajudicial procedures”. They said that “executive pressure” on intermediaries to “over-comply” will turn platforms into “private censors”.
The self-regulatory body argued that the portal violates principles of natural justice, due process and proportionality as it did not give originators of content any notice or a chance to be heard, and made no disclosures about the orders issued. They also highlighted blocking arbitrage created by the parallel blocking regimes of Section 69A and Section 79(3)(b)/Sahyog because of which same content could be blocked through a process devoid of procedural safeguards.
They have argued that removal of content published through intermediaries such as X infringes the fundamental rights of Sekhri and Digipub’s members, particularly the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), the right to practise one’s profession through digital means under Article 19(1)(g), and the corresponding right of audiences to receive information.
Digipub and Sekhri want the Centre to declare that Section 79(3)(b) does not confer content blocking powers and that any such content blocking powers, “if at all”, remain within the confines of Section 69A of the IT Act. They also want Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology’s (MeitY’s) office memorandum dated October 31, 2023 — “establishing the ‘Sahyog’ portal” — to be quashed along with notifications from the ministries of home, defence, railways and finance appointing nodal officers under Section 79(3)(b).
To be sure, the office memorandum number 1(4)/2020-CLES-1, dated October 31, 2023, does not talk about the creation of Sahyog. This office memorandum, sent by group coordinator of MeitY’s cyber laws division to all central ministries and departments, and all states and union territories’ chief secretaries and DGPs, had asked for each union ministry and department, and state to designate officials to issue takedown notices under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules against online content that violated any law administered by them. It had asked them to “confirm the same to MeitY for overall co-ordination”. This office memo had annexed a sample template for “content removal requests/takedown notice”.
Sahyog was first mentioned in formal communication to intermediaries in a letter dated August 19, 2024. In this letter, sent by the I4C CEO, intermediaries were asked to appoint a nodal officer to be onboarded onto this portal. The portal has been operational since October 2024.
Digipub was created in 2021 to comply with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 and counts the likes of Newslaundry, The Ken, The Quint, and independent journalists such as Ravish Kumar amongst its members. Sekhri, the CEO of Newslaundry and a board member of Digipub, has sought to intervene in his personal capacity.
X had sued the Centre in Karnataka HC in March 2025 over the Indian government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) and I4C’s creation of Sahyog portal, arguing that it not only sets up an illegal parallel content-blocking process but also violates the Supreme Court’s 2015 Shreya Singhal judgment. The company had argued that government authorities were misusing this section to bypass the safeguards of Section 69A and arbitrarily censor online content. It also argued that nothing in the law allows the creation of Sahyog or create a statutory requirement to appoint a nodal officer for such a portal.
Why do Digipub and Sekhri want to intervene in the matter?
Digipub and Sekhri have argued that opaque and unconstitutional takedown notices issued via Sahyog have a chilling effect on digital press as they rely on intermediaries such as X for dissemination. Arguing that platforms such as X are foundational to journalism, especially digital journalism, Digipub and Sekhri want to give the court “an account of the real-world implications of the impugned actions for digital news media”. Such platforms, they argue, are “dynamic spaces in which public discourse unfolds” where digital journalists “report news, shape editorial narratives, and engage with audiences in real time”.
Interestingly, Digipub and Sekhri said that as an intermediary, X does not enjoy fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) (right to freedom of speech and expression) and 19(1)(g) (right to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business), rights that are directly affected by the censorship challenge. X is “unable to address the editorial damage, the chilling effect, or the resulting deprivation of public access to lawful journalistic content”, they contended.
To be sure, in its statement of objections, the Centre had challenged X’s petition on maintainability grounds, arguing that as an American company, X cannot claim Article 19 rights reserved for natural persons.
Censoring journalists: Digital media’s issues with Sahyog
1. Unilateral takedown orders
Digipub and Sekhri have argued that the “Sahyog censorship regime” enables central ministries, state government and local law enforcement authorities to "unilaterally” issue take down requests “in coordination with intermediary platforms”.
2. Intermediaries fundamental to digital news operations
Digipub, whose members include digital only news publishers and individual journalists, argued that for such entities, non-compliance with takedown notices could lead to “disabling of work accounts or severance from audiences, directly threatening their ability to operate”. Platforms such as X have been described as “infrastructure of press freedom in online spaces” in the application.
3. Intermediaries as ‘private censors’
The body argued that the threat of loss of safe harbour (protection from liability for third party content) compels platforms to act as “silent censors” instead of “neutral conduits”, especially because as “profit-driven commercial entities”, they are to “institutionally configured” to safeguard freedom of speech. This adversely affects users, particularly digital journalists.
4. Chilling effect
Calling Sahyog an “informal takedown regime”, Digipub and Sekhri argued that such “regimes” have a chilling effect on journalistic activity, especially investigative and critical reporting on matters of public interest.
Citing takedown notices issued by Railways Ministry on February 11 and 12, the potential intervenors said that these orders targetted “lawful and legitimate reportage on matters of public concerns”.
In the order dated February 11, the railways ministry had sought to get videos showing individuals travelling atop trains and on footboards removed, saying that this could “affect railway operations” and “promote unlawful activity”. Digipub argued that this rationale was speculative and overbroad.
“Visual depictions of rooftop travel — such as the well-known Chaiyya Chaiyya music video — are an integral part of Indian popular culture and cinematic expression. The mere display of such imagery does not amount to incitement to commit an offence and, by itself, cannot attract the threshold for restriction under Article 19(2). To suggest otherwise would open the door to the suppression of artistic , journalistic, and cultural content on an arbitrary basis,” the application noted.
Details of the takedown notices sent by the Ministry of Railways can be found in my reporting at Hindustan Times here and here.
Digital media’s legal issues with Sahyog
1. Parallel blocking regime not backed by law, lacks procedural safeguards
Digipub and Sekhri have argued that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules does not give the creation of Sahyog any legal backing. No public information about the legal basis for Sahyog, its operational protocols or any procedural safeguards has been made available, they argued.
Like X, they argued that Sahyog “appears to be a part of a broader extra-statutory regime of online censorship” that circumvents the procedure laid down in Section 69A and the related 2009 Blocking Rules. They said that operation of Sahyog is procedurally opaque, lacks statutory accountability, and does not have any judicial or public oversight.
They submitted that under the Section 69A process, even in emergency situations where prior hearing may not be possible, post-decisional safeguards such as notice and reasoned orders are expressly required.
However, the Sahyog regime, they argued, replaces “institutional structure with ad hoc determinations by executive authorities” who are not “institutionally equipped to apply constitutional standards of necessity, proportionality, or to balance competing rights” result in an “opaque, decentralised, and unaccountable censorship”.
Interestingly, Digipub argued that both the 2009 Blocking Rules and the 2021 IT Rules employ multiple safeguards such as multi-member expert committees, reasoned decision making, and post-decisional review.
2. Content originators not heard, excluded from the process
The application argued that as a process that is distinct from the Section 69A blocking process, the Section 79(3)(b)/Sahyog process lacks transparency and procedural safeguards where content originators are not notified of the charge, reasons for withholding accounts or deleting content, the evidence or the outcome, and there is no forum for rebuttal, no procedure for review, and no means to establish the lawfulness of content.
“Through it [Sahyog], executive authorities may order content removal without notice, without reasons, and without affording the affected parties an opportunity to respond,” they said.
The information exchange about the takedown notices is “restricted” to the complainant authority and the concerned intermediary. “It is a closed loop of executive control,” they said, where the executive judges its own cause.
3. Violative of the 2015 Shreya Singhal judgement
Digipub argued that the Centre’s response to X’s petition, where it argued that that Section 79(3)(b) is exempt from protections outlined by the apex court in the Shreya Singhal judgement, is “untenable”.
In the Shreya Singhal judgement, the apex court had read down Section 79(3)(b) and held that only courts and “notification by the appropriate Government or its agency” can issue a takedown notice under this provision for only the content that is restricted under Article 19(2). In its submission in March 2025, the Centre had argued that the apex court’s remarks about Section 79(3)(b) were merely a “discussion,” not “binding precedent”, something that Digipub argues against.
4. Broad use of ‘unlawful content’
The application argues that the use of Sahyog to take down any “unlawful” content, as given in Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, goes beyond the realm of restrictions placed under Article 19(2), as ruled by the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal judgement. They argued that the Centre’s submission that “unlawful content” under Section 79(3)(b) is broader than that under Section 69A violates the Shreya Singhal judgement.
Calling the concept of “unlawful concept” “nebulous”, Digipub and Sekhri argued that it is “undefined, overly broad, and untethered to the grounds set out in Section 69A”.
5. Expansive scope fails Article 14 test
Digipub and Sekhri argued that while Section 69A allows content blocking on narrow grounds, Sahyog authorises takedowns on an undefined category of “unlawful content”, creating two parallel regimes that fail the prongs of the Article 14 test: first, no intelligible difference exists between content regulation under the two regimes; and second, there is “no rational nexus between this classification and any legitimate state objective”.
They argued that there are no principled reasons why speech concerning public morality can be “summarily removed” through Sahyog while content related to “national security” concerns must undergo a formal, multi-tiered process under Section 69A.
Read my previous coverage of issues with Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and this case here:
1. Inside 79(3)(b), the content blocking provision with many legal grey areas (February 4, 2024)
2. X sues govt over use of IT Act to block content (March 20, 2025)
3. In Karnataka HC, Centre defends use of IT Act for takedown notices (March 28, 2025)
4. WhatsApp leads I4C notices; X hit for political content: Data (March 31, 2025)
5. Remove videos of station stampede: Rlys notice to X (February 21, 2025)
6. Railways sent 7 takedown notices to platforms since Dec (March 21, 2025)
7. IT Act: Delhi Police gets nod to issue ‘takedown orders’ (January 9, 2025)
8. DGGI can now send takedown orders against online money gaming apps evading GST (January 7, 2025)
9. Army can now directly issue notices to remove online posts (October 31, 2024)
10. IT ministry empowers I4C to notify instances of cybercrime (March 15, 2024)
“The End”