Karnataka Court Ruling Concerns Free Speech and Safe Harbor

“The court was not asked to rule on whether social media platforms can be regulated, whether freedom of expression is absolute but on whether the Sahyog censorship portal was in line with the IT Act and the limitations that the Constitution of India permitted on freedom of expression. It failed to do so.”

“I find it rather shocking that the Karnataka HC doesn’t engage with the fact that tweets by news organisations were ordered to be censored via the Sahyog portal. It is clear to me that the Karnataka HC has not engaged with either the facts of this case, nor with the law and the Constitution of India.”

“The Court’s order is a significant recalibration of the safe harbour framework for intermediaries in India. By upholding the Sahyog Portal under the IT Rules, Safe harbour under Section 79 now appears increasingly conditional on strict compliance with government directives”

“Going forward, any failure to cooperate with portals like Sahyog may expose platforms to the loss of immunity and direct liability”

“This is a specialised task that requires application of mind and experience. Having different ministries/departments issuing such notices may increase risk of confusion in interpretation of law, misuse etc”

“The order doesn’t change any positions held in law. However, it is likely to lead to heavier compliance for social media companies through engagement with Sahyog Portal.”