“Social Media Platforms Cannot Seek Immunity From Indian Laws While Obeying Foreign Laws”: Karnataka High Court

“Liberty is yoked to responsibility, and the privilege of access carries with it the solemn duty of accountability”, Karnataka High Court delivered a seminal verdict in the case of X Corp v. Union of India, dismissing a constitutional challenge to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and upholding the legality of the Sahyog Portal and content takedown directives issued by the Government. Justice M. Nagaprasanna ruled that social media platforms are not above the law, and cannot claim immunity from Indian regulatory frameworks while complying with similar obligations in foreign jurisdictions. The Court's judgment is a crucial affirmation of constitutional sovereignty in the digital domain and sets an authoritative precedent on the regulation of online content in India.

The petitioner, X Corp (formerly Twitter Inc.), challenged a series of blocking orders issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as well as the validity of certain provisions of the IT Rules, 2021 and the recently introduced Sahyog Portal—a digital mechanism to facilitate execution of takedown notices. The petitioner argued that the takedown notices violated the fundamental right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and contended that the Sahyog Portal was ultra vires the IT Act, alleging absence of due process and transparency.

The case attracted nationwide attention, with several public interest interventions highlighting the impact of online content moderation on women’s safety, fake news, deepfakes, and digital violence.

The Court formulated 11 issues and meticulously addressed each legal question. Notable among them were:

“Right to Free Speech Under Article 19(1)(a) Is Not Absolute and Must Yield to Article 19(2)”

The Court reaffirmed that freedom of speech is not unfettered, and is subject to reasonable restrictions on grounds such as public order, decency, morality, and sovereignty under Article 19(2). Referring to long-standing precedent, it held:

“Unregulated speech, under the guise of liberty, becomes a license for lawlessness. Regulated speech, by contrast, preserves both liberty and order—the twin pillars upon which any democracy must stand.”

“Article 19 Protections Apply to Citizens – A Foreign Corporation Cannot Invoke It”

The petitioner’s invocation of Article 19(1)(a) was outrightly rejected:

“Article 19… remains nevertheless a charter of rights conferred upon citizens only. The petitioner who seeks sanctuary under its canopy, must be a citizen of the nation, failing which the protective embrace of Article 19 cannot be invoked.”

The Court emphasized that a foreign company cannot seek constitutional rights reserved for Indian citizens, and this principle has been upheld by the Supreme Court since 1950.

“Shreya Singhal Does Not Apply to the 2021 Rules”

The Court clarified that Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), which had struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, dealt with the 2011 Rules, and cannot be mechanically applied to the 2021 regime:

“Shreya Singhal spoke to the 2011 Rules, now consigned to history. The 2021 Rules, fresh in their conception and distinct in their design, demand their own interpretative frame, unsaddled by precedents that address a bygone regime.”

On Sahyog Portal: A Legitimate Statutory Instrument

The Court upheld the validity of the Sahyog Portal, a digital interface for issuing and executing takedown orders under Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, read with Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. The portal, far from being ultra vires, was found to be a “facilitative mechanism” to ensure compliance:

“The Sahyog Portal, far from being a constitutional anathema, is in truth an instrument of public good… a beacon of cooperation between citizen and intermediary.”

Algorithms and Human Agency:

Rejecting the petitioner’s claim that its platform operates autonomously without human control, the Court made a significant pronouncement on the role of human agency behind algorithms:

“Algorithms are not independent actors; they are extensions of human judgment encoded in mathematical form… The engineer who writes the code, the policy maker who sets the goal, the manager who collects the data—all are human beings.”

Thus, platforms cannot evade liability by claiming algorithmic neutrality, as algorithms are shaped and operated by humans, and must remain accountable to the law.

Comparative Legal Analysis: The TAKE IT DOWN Act (USA) vs India

The Court critically noted the hypocrisy of X Corp, which complies with stringent laws in the United States, such as the “TAKE IT DOWN Act, 2025”, while resisting similar regulatory mechanisms in India. Quoting provisions from the US law on non-consensual image-based abuse, the Court observed:

“The petitioner obeys every Act of the United States, and wants to disobey the law of the Indian soil.”

It held that constitutional norms and statutory frameworks in India cannot be undermined in favor of foreign legal standards, reiterating that American jurisprudential thought cannot be transplanted onto Indian soil.

Social Media: Threat or Tool? Need for Regulation Emphasized

In a sweeping analysis, the Court cited global scholarly research, UN reports, and case law to highlight the pervasive menace of misinformation, deepfakes, online threats, cyberbullying, and especially violence against women.

“The platform that once promised enlightenment has become the stage of falsehood… The social media networking sites are sometimes described as demons of the modern age.”

The Court extensively cited international developments including the UN Secretary General's report on tech-facilitated gender violence, noting that deepfakes and misogynistic AI-generated content are proliferating unchecked.

“Regulation Is Not A Matter of Choice But A Solemn Necessity”

The Court held that India must regulate digital content not just in the interest of public order, but also to preserve dignity, especially of women:

“Regulating the social media is a must. The State… carries the solemn obligation to align its regulatory frameworks… ensuring that digital spaces do not become lawless territory where women’s rights are trampled with impunity.”

On Petitioner’s Conduct: Compliance Abroad, Defiance in India

The judgment noted repeated instances where X Corp refused to comply with takedown orders in India, while complying with similar directions in countries like Brazil, Australia, and under the EU’s Digital Services Act. The platform even allowed a fake account impersonating the Karnataka High Court to operate until it was exposed in open court.

“If such impersonation of a Constitutional Court can be permitted… it would underscore the truth that on the petitioner’s platform, anything can be done—for no vigilant guards its gates.”

The petition was dismissed in entirety. The Court summarized its findings as follows:

The right to free speech is not absolute and does not extend to foreign corporations.

The Sahyog Portal is lawful, enabling the enforcement of statutory duties under the IT Act.

Regulation of online content is constitutional, necessary, and not an infringement on liberty.

Shreya Singhal does not govern the interpretation of the 2021 Rules.

Social media platforms must be accountable, and algorithms are not beyond human control.

The conduct of X Corp reveals double standards, which cannot be permitted.

The Karnataka High Court’s judgment is a foundational affirmation of India’s digital sovereignty, calling for regulation over lawless digital spaces while safeguarding democratic discourse. In a digital age dominated by misinformation, deepfakes, and anonymity, the verdict strikes a constitutional balance between free expression and public order. The Court made it clear that foreign tech giants operating in India must adhere to Indian law, and that liberty cannot be a shield for lawlessness.

Date of Decision: October 30, 2025