IT Rules
In September 2025, the Karnataka high court delivered a judgment that could redefine how India governs its digital space. In X Corp versus Union of India, the court upheld the Union government’s Sahyog portal, an online system that allows central and state authorities, including police officers, to issue content-removal directions under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Rule 3(1)(d) of the Intermediary Guidelines, 2021. https://thewire.in/tech/indias-digital-paradox-when-both-copyright-and-free-speech-lose
The court rejected X Corp’s argument that Sahyog circumvents Section 69A of the Act, which regulates blocking orders and prescribes safeguards such as written reasons, notice, and review. Calling Sahyog merely a “facilitation mechanism,” the high court judges held that it only streamlines communication between the government and online platforms
X Corp has announced plans to appeal, warning that the ruling empowers “millions of officers” to demand takedowns without oversight, enabling arbitrary censorship. The decision has revived a broader debate about the design of India’s takedown regimes. While Sahyog expands executive power to suppress speech, the other major takedown system meant to protect artists from copyright infringement remains largely ineffective. One framework is too weak to protect creators while the other is too strong to protect citizens.
12/11/2025
A two-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court is now hearing a challenge filed by Proton AG, the Swiss company that runs the encrypted email service, Proton Mail. On April 29, a single judge of the high court had directed the Union government to block the service in India, setting off a wave of criticism from digital rights advocates. https://scroll.in/article/1084862/why-a-court-ban-on-encrypted-email-service-proton-mail-has-sparked-digital-privacy-fears
Many of them told Scroll that the court’s ban set a dangerous precedent that threatens the privacy of whistle-blowers, activists, journalists, and others who rely on encryption for more secure communications.
The case began when a Bengaluru-based organisation approached the High Court after some of its female employees were subjected to prolonged online harassment. The company received a torrent of emails from two Proton Mail accounts containing obscene and abusive content, including morphed images of the employees.
The company filed a police complaint and reached out to Proton Mail’s abuse team. While Proton disabled the offending accounts, it could not provide the company personally identifiable details of the sender of the mail.
Justice M Nagaprasanna took a stern view of the matter in his judgment. Describing the situation as a “menace”, he noted that Proton Mail had also been used to send bomb threats to schools and even to the Chief Minister of Karnataka.
Concluding that the court could not remain a “mute spectator”, the judge directed the Union government to initiate proceedings to block Proton Mail in India under the Information Technology Act.
by Vineet Bhalla
28/07/2025
WhatsApp told the Delhi high court on Thursday that if it is made to break encryption of messages, then the social message platform will stop functioning. https://www.rediff.com/news/report/whatsapp-would-cease-to-exist-if/20240426.htm
The court is hearing petitions filed by WhatsApp LLC and its parent company Facebook Inc (now Meta), challenging the 2021 Information Technology rules for social media intermediaries requiring the messaging app to trace chats and make provisions to identify the first originator of information, for hearing on August 14.
26/04/2024
MEITY blocks information requests citing national security and the requirement to maintain “strict confidentiality”. A Delhi high court case may help change practices around internet censorship in India. https://thewire.in/rights/dowry-calculator-censorship-information-india
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) is empowered to issue directions for blocking access to information (including tweets, websites – anything available on the internet) under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The procedure it follows to do this is detailed in ‘The Information Technology (Procedure and safeguards for blocking for access of information by public) Rules, 2009’ or the IT Blocking Rules, 2009.
Ever since billionaire Elon Musk took over Twitter last October, the company has increasingly acceded to government requests for censorship and surveillance. The company’s own data showed that it did not decline a single such request between October 2022 to April 2023, unlike before Musk’s acquisition.
“This lack of transparency also allows for the complete lack of accountability that exists in India’s blocking regime,” Tanmay Singh, Senior Litigation Counsel at digital rights advocacy group Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) told Decode.
by Saurav Das
15/06/2023
Fareed Zakaria: This should send chills down every American's spine https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZynsHe_vJY Apr 9, 2023 CNN host Fareed Zakaria explains why legislation proposed for a nationwide ban on TikTok is frighteningly "Orwellian."
Response on youtube: Tarso Werlang Why does our government allow corporations to dig so deep into our personal data for their profit. Screw that. If we had comprehensive data protection, TikTok wouldn't be an issue. In fact, none of these companies would be an issue.
Grizzled Nerd To me part of the issue is the conflation between the US's lack of meaningful privacy legislation and a specific app, in this case TikTok, that's a risk due to the current geopolitical issues. There's lots of examples of effective privacy legislation out there (Europe's GDPR for example) that could be used as a starting point. The real issue is that the on sale of customer private information is a very lucrative business and US legislators consistently fail with the Ethics vs Money question.
Paul C I instintively thought that this sounded like collective paranoia, thank-you Fareed for explaining in detail something that my gut feeling was telling me was wrong. Group thinking and tribal behaviour based on no facts exists in all societies.
Michele Engel -articulate argument against banning the TikTok app in the U.S. I was unaware of the alternatives, in terms of national security and privacy issues, and ignorant of the political impact it would have on the free flow of information.
Caroline : US intel committee will never permit a comprehensive data privacy law. They would lose the best mass access spying tools they have ever had.
Elizabeth Lode You can tell there's a tension in the air - I smell fear and thus exaggerated reactions to others actions are starting to show on so many levels. Fearful humans are dangerous. What have we done and what will befall us now?
Stacey Gruver The issue with TikTok is the way in which the app is presented in China compared to the rest of the world. In China it is exclusively a educational / musical educational platform, there is not cute dances, tricks or any activity that does not support education and life skills. Especially in the United States it was designed to be addictive and waste young people’s time, instead of being constructive and educating themselves. It also was designed to create division not only between races, but generations. The final pice is it extrapolates massive amounts of data not only from your device, but any device that clicks onto your TikTok feed.