Elon Musk-owned X Corp has alleged that the Union Government sought to secure, through a "backdoor" mechanism, a judicial direction requiring the platform to onboard onto the Sahyog Portal despite the portal's legality being challenged in separate proceedings.
The allegation forms part of an affidavit filed by X Corp in proceedings before the Gujarat High Court. According to the company, the Ministry of Home Affairs failed to disclose material facts, including the pendency of legal challenges concerning the Sahyog Portal, while supporting a public interest litigation that sought greater cooperation from social media platforms.
The controversy centres on the Sahyog Portal, a government-backed digital interface designed to facilitate communication between law enforcement agencies and social media intermediaries regarding online content removal and compliance requests. X Corp has consistently maintained that the portal creates an alternative content-removal framework that bypasses statutory safeguards established under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The Union Government, however, has argued that the portal operates within the framework of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. According to the Centre, the mechanism merely streamlines lawful requests and improves coordination between intermediaries and enforcement agencies.
X Corp rejected allegations that it has failed to cooperate with government requests. In its affidavit, the company asserted that it complies with all valid Section 69A blocking orders, including emergency directions, and maintains established channels for processing legal requests from government authorities.
The dispute gained further significance when the Supreme Court of India, on September 8, 2026, issued notice on the Centre's transfer petition and stayed further proceedings before the Gujarat High Court. The apex court's intervention means that questions surrounding the portal's legality, intermediary obligations, and procedural safeguards are likely to receive closer judicial scrutiny.
The broader legal debate concerns the extent of governmental authority to seek content removal from online platforms, the distinction between Section 69A blocking orders and Section 79 compliance obligations, and the constitutional implications for online speech and intermediary liability.
The matter is expected to have significant implications for digital governance, content moderation practices, and the future relationship between technology platforms and Indian regulatory authorities.