New Delhi, Dec 06: The Dialogue, a Delhi-based public policy think tank, convened a high-level discussion analysing the implications of the Karnataka High Court’s recent judgment in X v. Union of India, with a focus on its impact on free speech, due process, and platform governance in India. The panel featured prominent legal and technology experts Vrinda Bhandari (Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court of India), Sneha Jain (Partner, Saikrishna & Associates) and Aditi Agrawal (technology journalist). The session was moderated by Sachin Dhawan, Deputy Director at The Dialogue.
Opening the discussion, Mr. Dhawan contextualised the judgment within the government’s evolving digital regulatory framework. He noted that although the case pertains specifically to platform X, its implications extend far beyond affecting all intermediaries operating in India and millions of users who rely on these platforms to exercise and experience free speech online.
Intermediary Liability, Safe Harbour & Expanding Takedown Powers
Providing regulatory background, Ms. Agrawal traced the evolution of Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, 2021, and Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act. She highlighted how the addition of the phrase “prohibited under any law for the time being in force” has significantly broadened the scope of takedown demands, often compelling platforms to evaluate lawful expression under compressed timelines. Citing her reporting, she outlined a growing trend where content deemed politically sensitive or reputationally damaging is increasingly categorised under “public order”, resulting in heightened pressure on intermediaries to comply.
Expanding on safe harbour protections, Ms. Jain stressed that Section 79 is designed to serve as a shield, not as a tool of executive enforcement. She warned that excessive reliance on Section 79(3)(b) as an informal blocking mechanism risks creating a parallel layer of content restriction outside the constitutionally validated framework of Section 69A. She also raised concerns over the High Court’s stance on locus standi, which prevents platforms from challenging potentially unlawful orders thereby weakening the rights of users who depend on intermediaries to safeguard digital expression.
Constitutional Tensions and The Shreya Singhal Precedent
Offering a constitutional critique, Ms. Bhandari expressed concern at the judgment’s interpretation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Shreya Singhal, noting that the High Court appeared to diminish its relevance due to technological advancements and rule changes despite it remaining binding precedent. Drawing on comparative global jurisprudence, she cautioned against transplanting foreign liability models without aligning them with India’s constitutional protections.
She further emphasised that undermining a platform’s ability to contest takedown orders ultimately erodes Article 19(1)(a) rights for users. The emergence of executive-led, portal-operated mechanisms like the Sahyog portal, she warned, may centralise and obscure censorship pathways, with limited transparency and inadequate procedural safeguards.
The Future of Safe Harbour at a Crossroads
In closing, the panel collectively observed that safe harbour protections in India are at a critical turning point. The rise of opaque, parallel takedown processes coupled with slow judicial recourse risks deepening uncertainty for both platforms and users. The speakers underscored the need for transparent statutory safeguards, proportional enforcement mechanisms, and stronger procedural accountability to protect free expression and ensure a predictable regulatory environment for intermediaries.
