Social media platform X Corp has told the Karnataka High Court that it received 29,118 government takedown requests between January and June 2025 and complied with 26,641 of them — a compliance rate of 91.49 per cent.
The company submitted these figures to counter a single judge’s September 24 observation that the platform intends to defy Indian law.
The data forms part of X’s writ appeal challenging the order that upheld the Union government’s ‘Sahyog’ portal, the online interface used to issue content removal directions to intermediaries.
In its appeal, X Corp argued that government authorities are improperly invoking Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 IT Rules to compel takedowns.
According to the company, this practice has created an alternative and unconstitutional pathway for content blocking that sidesteps Section 69A of the IT Act — the only statutory mechanism for restricting online content in India.
X cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015), which upheld the Section 69A framework and its procedural safeguards.
It further argued that Section 79 serves solely as a “safe harbour” protecting intermediaries from liability and does not empower the government to block content.
Despite this, X claimed that a MeitY memorandum dated October 31, 2023, authorised thousands of officials across ministries and state governments to issue blocking directions under Section 79(3)(b) and Rule 3(1)(d), thereby bypassing the more stringent requirements of Section 69A.
The company also alleged that the Ministry of Home Affairs created a confidential ‘Sahyog’ portal on MeitY’s directions to facilitate such takedown orders without statutory basis or transparency.
This, X argued, amounts to an excessive expansion of executive power and enables censorship without due process.
The petition listed several instances in which state police units and central ministries ordered the removal of political criticism, news reports, parody and other lawful online content under Rule 3(1)(d).
X contended that Rule 3(1)(d) lacks the procedural safeguards embedded in Section 69A, including reasoned orders and the narrow grounds permitted under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
Allowing the government to use a less rigorous mechanism for content blocking, the company argued, violates Article 14 and effectively nullifies Section 69A.
According to X, the single judge did not address these constitutional concerns.
A central argument in the appeal is that the single judge misinterpreted the Shreya Singhal verdict by concluding that it had been diluted after the 2021 IT Rules replaced the earlier 2011 regime.
X maintained that the Supreme Court judgment continues to apply fully, since the underlying statutory provisions — Sections 69A and 79 and the 2009 Blocking Rules — remain unchanged.