Bengaluru, India – X Indian court appeal launched by Elon Musk’s platform targets a Karnataka High Court order upholding content takedown demands via the Sahyog portal. Announced on Monday, September 29, 2025, the move defends free expression amid concerns over arbitrary police powers. The case stems from X’s rejected petition on September 24, 2025, highlighting tensions between regulation and rights.
Elon Musk X Appeals Karnataka Content Takedown Order
X Corp, formerly Twitter, filed its X Indian court appeal following the Karnataka High Court’s dismissal of its challenge to government takedown mechanisms. The platform argues the order enables unchecked content removal, threatening user rights. On September 29, 2025, X issued a statement outlining its position.
The Sahyog portal, launched by the Union Home Ministry in October 2024, streamlines notices to 65 intermediaries. Between October 2024 and April 2025, it issued 130 takedown orders under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. X contends this bypasses Section 69A, which mandates judicial review and procedural safeguards as per the Supreme Court’s 2015 Shreya Singhal judgment.
“This new regime has no basis in the law, circumvents Section 69A of the IT Act, violates Supreme Court rulings, and infringes Indian citizens’ constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression,” X stated. The company emphasised the portal’s lack of transparency, allowing officers to flag content as illegal without due process.
Justice M Nagaprasanna, delivering the September 24 verdict in Writ Petition 7405 of 2025, rejected X’s plea. The court ruled that as a foreign entity incorporated abroad, X cannot invoke Article 19 of the Constitution, which protects free speech for citizens only. “X Corp is a faceless company with no legal presence in India,” the judgment noted, adding that platforms must comply with local laws to operate.
The ruling described Sahyog as “an instrument of public good” and a “beacon of cooperation” against cybercrime. It stressed regulation’s necessity, particularly for offences against women. “Content on social media must be regulated, failing which the right to dignity of citizens is undermined,” Justice Nagaprasanna observed.
X countered that its overseas status does not bar raising constitutional issues. “We respectfully disagree with the view that we have no right to raise these concerns because of our incorporation abroad, X contributes significantly to public discourse in India and the voice of our users is at the heart of our platform,” the statement read. The platform pledged to appeal to uphold free expression.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, defended Sahyog during hearings. He argued unlawful content lacks free speech protections and that safe harbour under the IT Act is conditional on due diligence. The government highlighted the portal’s role in swift action against illegal posts, rejecting claims of a “chilling effect” on discourse.
Background on X Indian Court Appeal
The X Indian court appeal traces to March 2025, when X sued the Indian government in Karnataka High Court over alleged IT Act misuse and Sahyog’s implementation. X described it as “arbitrary censorship,” seeking declarations that blocking orders must follow Section 69A exclusively.
Earlier precedents shaped the dispute. The Bombay High Court recently invalidated a similar framework as unconstitutional, citing inadequate safeguards. The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal struck down Section 66A but upheld Section 69A with oversight requirements. X invoked these to argue Sahyog’s extra-legal nature.
Karnataka’s order aligns with broader efforts to combat online harms. The portal automates notices, reducing manual processes. Yet critics, including X, warn of overreach, potentially stifling dissent in India’s 900 million-plus internet users.
Intervenors like the Internet Freedom Foundation supported X, urging stronger procedural checks. Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi argued for users’ rights, but the court prioritised state authority. Data from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology shows over 10,000 content blocks in 2024 under various provisions. Sahyog’s expansion to state police forces amplifies its scope, covering millions of officers.
Why the X Indian Court Appeal Matters in South Asia
This X Indian court appeal resonates across South Asia, where digital platforms drive activism and information flow. India, the world’s largest democracy, sets precedents for neighbours like Pakistan and Bangladesh facing similar content battles. Arbitrary takedowns could erode trust in online spaces, vital for marginalised voices.
In a region with rising cyber threats, balanced regulation aids security without curbing expression. X’s fight underscores global platforms’ role in local governance, influencing policies from Sri Lanka’s social media laws to Nepal’s data protection drives. Success or failure may redefine intermediary liabilities, affecting 1.5 billion South Asians online.
The case highlights foreign firms’ challenges in invoking rights abroad. While X operates without an Indian entity, its 500 million users here demand accountability. Economically, India contributes substantially to X’s revenue, making compliance a business imperative.
Legal experts note the verdict’s consistency with trends favouring state control. Yet appeals could reach the Supreme Court, echoing Shreya Singhal’s legacy.
Elon Musk X Appeals Karnataka Content Takedown Order: Legal Nuances
Delving deeper, the X Indian court appeal pivots on statutory interpretation. Section 79(3)(b) requires intermediaries to observe government directives on unlawful information, losing safe harbour otherwise. X sought to limit this to Section 69A’s framework, which demands written reasons and post-facto review.
The Karnataka bench clarified Section 79(3)(b) as a standalone tool for expeditious removals, not circumventing Section 69A. “Unlawful content does not attract the same constitutional protections,” the judgment stated, prioritising societal interests.
X’s counsel, Senior Advocate KG Raghavan, pressed for user notifications and appeals, absent in Sahyog. The government rebutted that platforms like X already moderate content proactively.
Comparisons to global norms surface. The EU’s Digital Services Act mandates transparency reports, contrasting Sahyog’s opacity. In the US, Section 230 shields platforms, but India conditions it on compliance.
Stakeholders await the appeal’s filing, likely in the Supreme Court. X’s persistence signals commitment to India’s market, valued at USD 1.2 billion in ad spend for social media in 2025.
What’s Next for Elon Musk X Appeals Karnataka Content Takedown Order
As X advances its X Indian court appeal, timelines remain fluid. The platform eyes higher courts for relief, potentially by late 2025. Meanwhile, compliance with existing orders continues, balancing operations and principles.
Government updates to Sahyog could address transparency gaps, fostering dialogue. For users, awareness of rights under the IT Act grows crucial.
This saga may spur legislative tweaks, aligning India’s rules with international standards. Platforms prepare for intensified scrutiny, while advocates push for safeguards. Ultimately, the X Indian court appeal could safeguard digital discourse, ensuring South Asia’s online sphere remains vibrant yet secure.
Published in SouthAsianDesk, September 29th, 2025
Follow SouthAsianDesk on X, Instagram, and Facebook for insights on business and current affairs from across South Asia.
