Archive · 11 Sep 2026
X Accuses Centre of Backdoor Sahyog Portal Push
X Corp and the Indian government are arguing about how online posts should be removed.
The government wants X to use a portal called Sahyog for some content-removal requests.
X says joining the portal is not legally required and that it already uses another system called LEGOS.
X also says it follows government orders issued under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act.
The company claims the government gave the Gujarat High Court an incomplete picture of other court cases about Sahyog.
The government says X did not properly respond to some notices about online posts.
Some of those posts were described as fake, misleading, or AI-manipulated.
The Supreme Court has paused the Gujarat case while deciding whether it should be moved.
The dispute also involves concerns about free speech and who should decide whether online content is unlawful.
X Corp told the Gujarat High Court that the Ministry of Home Affairs concealed developments in Karnataka litigation over the Sahyog portal.
The company said it complied with all Section 69A blocking orders and disputed claims that it failed to cooperate with lawful takedown requests.
X argued that joining Sahyog is optional, lacks a clear basis in the Information Technology Act and 2021 Rules, and duplicates its LEGOS system.
The Centre has alleged that X did not adequately respond to notices concerning online content, including AI-generated or manipulated material.
The Supreme Court has stayed further Gujarat High Court proceedings while considering the Centre’s request to transfer the case.
- Who
- X Corp, the Ministry of Home Affairs, and courts including the Gujarat High Court, Karnataka High Court, Delhi High Court, and Supreme Court of India.
- What
- A legal dispute over X’s compliance with Indian content-blocking requests and whether it must join the government’s Sahyog portal.
- When
- X filed its affidavit in August; the Supreme Court issued notice on September 8 and stayed Gujarat High Court proceedings. The affidavit also discusses government actions from 2024 through 2026.
- Where
- The dispute involves proceedings in the Gujarat, Karnataka, Delhi, and Supreme courts in India.
- Why
- X says Sahyog is not legally mandatory and that it has complied with Section 69A orders, while the Centre has alleged inadequate cooperation with content-removal requests.
X Corp’s Position
Centre’s Position
Compliance with takedown orders
X Corp’s Position
X says it complied with all lawfully issued Section 69A blocking orders, including emergency orders, and denied failing to cooperate.
Centre’s Position
The Centre says X failed to cooperate with lawful content-blocking directions and cited limited formal responses to notices concerning URLs.
Requirement to join Sahyog
X Corp’s Position
X says Sahyog is not mandatory under the Information Technology Act or the Information Technology Rules, 2021, and that its LEGOS system already handles government requests.
Centre’s Position
The Centre is seeking an order in the Gujarat proceedings that would require X to join Sahyog, according to X’s account of the litigation.
Treatment of flagged content
X Corp’s Position
X says many flagged URLs involved current affairs, news and political parties, and argues that Section 79 notices lack the safeguards of Section 69A blocking orders.
Centre’s Position
The Centre has identified content as unlawful, misleading, AI-generated or manipulated, and potentially capable of spreading misinformation, provoking public sentiment or disturbing public order.
- Company
- Elon Musk-owned X Corp
- Government body
- Ministry of Home Affairs
- Disputed portal
- Sahyog
- X’s existing system
- LEGOS, used for law-enforcement requests
- Section 69A compliance claim
- X said it complied with all 146 blocking lists issued from January through April 2026, covering at least 5,129 URLs.
- 2025 blocking figures
- X said the government issued at least 11 emergency lists covering at least 15,000 URLs and 66 non-emergency lists covering at least 4,000 URLs.
- Supreme Court action
- The court issued notice on the Centre’s transfer plea and stayed further Gujarat High Court proceedings.