Karnataka High Court Declines To Issue Notice On DIGIPUB Plea Over SAHYOG Portal
Karnataka High Court declines to issue notice on DIGIPUB's plea against SAHYOG Portal content blocking orders.
advertisement
The Karnataka High Court on 26 March 2026 declined to issue notice on a plea filed by DIGIPUB News India Foundation and journalist Abhinandan Sekhri. The plea challenged an order that upheld Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act as a standalone provision authorising Central government officers to issue content blocking orders through the SAHYOG Portal. The court decided not to issue notice at this stage and instead listed the matter alongside a similar appeal by X Corp, formerly known as Twitter.
As reported by Live Law, the division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C. Poonacha orally remarked on the rejection of DIGIPUB's intervention application by the single judge bench. The counsel for DIGIPUB argued that the application had been heard on merits and requested condonation of a 17-day delay, but the court reiterated its decision not to issue notice at this time.
The bench clarified that the plea would be listed with the similar appeal filed by X Corp, which also contests the single judge's order. Coverage revealed that the court had already issued notice in the X Corp matter and scheduled it for hearing on 11 June 2026.
In the underlying single judge decision from September 2025, the court had dismissed the argument that information blocking orders could only be issued under Section 69A of the IT Act. Instead, the judgment held that Section 79(3)(b), read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules 2021, permits authorities to require intermediaries to remove unlawful content. If intermediaries do not comply, they risk losing the 'safe harbour' protection provided by Section 79 of the IT Act. The single judge also upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules 2021.
Analysis showed that the court distinguished between the powers under Section 69A, which allows the government to instruct intermediaries to take down information for reasons such as national security or public order, and Section 79, which removes safe harbour immunity if intermediaries fail to act on government or court directions to remove unlawful content. The court found that Section 79(3)(b) is an empowering provision for content removal, not limited to the procedural safeguards of Section 69A.
"We are not issuing notice in the matter now. Notice was issued in a similar matter. We are simply listing it along with it," the division bench orally stated during the hearing.
Further proceedings indicated that X Corp continues to assert that blocking and takedown directions should only be issued under Section 69A, which contains specific statutory safeguards. However, the single judge's order maintained that Section 79(3)(b) also provides a legal basis for requiring intermediaries to remove content, and that failure to comply results in loss of safe harbour protection.
The court's approach, as details emerged, reflects a broader judicial interpretation of intermediary liability and government powers under the Information Technology Act. The matter is now scheduled to be heard along with the X Corp appeal on 11 June 2026.
Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.