## Full Text X (formerly Twitter) has lost its appeal in the Karnataka High Court against the Union government's Sahyog portal, which allows police from across the country to send social media platforms takedown notices. Here's the full dictated order: ​ > whether the regimes of regulation that prevailed in earlier times continue to subsist both with the local context for our polity and in the global order of nations; > > whether right to free speech as enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India is an unbridled entitlement or whether it stands hedged by the canopy of reasonable restrictions as embodied in Article 19(2); > > whether the jurisprudential edifice of the United States of America may be transplanted without reservation or adaptation into the soil of the Indian constitutional thought; > > whether there has been a discernible shift in American judicial philosophy in the aftermath of the celebrated decision in the case of Reno v. ACLU, and if so, to what effect upon comparative jurisprudence; > > what were the rules that fell for consideration before the before the apex court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India; > > and whether in the contemporary context, the rules now occupying the field are materially distinct, thus demanding a fresh interpretative lens; > > what were the rules that fell for consideration before the before the apex court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India; > > whether the present challenge to the rules or their constitutionality is vitiated by the alleged vagueness or whether the rules withstand the test of clarity and definiteness in law; > > whether the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution are to be regarded as essentially citizen centric or whether they extend in their sweep to all persons; > > whether Sahyog Portal envisage envisaged under the Information Technology Act is ultra vires the parent enactment or whether it stands as a legitimate instrument in aid to statutory purpose. > > In contemporary digital milieu where algorithms increasingly shape the flow of information, its autonomy can eclipse the guiding hand of human agency. It is a myth or a reality, whether the menace of social media needs to be curbed and regulated. > > I will read the summary of findings: From Orient to the Occident, The march of civilization has borne witness to the inescapable truth that information and communication, its spread or its speed has never been left unchecked and unregulated. > > It has always been the subject matter of regulation. As and when technology developed from messengers to the postal age till the age of WhatsApp, Instagram and Snapchat; all have been regulated by regulator regimes, subsisting then and subsisting today both globally and locally. > > Article 19(1)(a) Constitution right to free speech and expression is hedged by restrictions under Article 19(2) and is always subject to those reasonable restrictions. > > American jurisprudential edifice or American judicial thought cannot be transplanted into the soil of Indian constitutional thought is a clear law enunciated by the apex court right from 1950 till this date. > > The judicial thought process has undergone a complete change in the realm of free speech even in the United States of America in the aftermath of the judgment of Renault v. American Civil Liberties Union. > > Article 19 of the Constitution of India, noble in its spirit and luminous in its promise, remains nevertheless a charter of rights conferred upon citizens only. > > The petitioner who seeks sanctuary under its canopy must must be a citizen of the nation, failing which the protective embrace of Article 19 cannot be invoked. > > Sahyog Portal, far from being constitutional anathema in its truth is an instrument of public good, conceived under the authority of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act and Rule 3D of the 2021 Rules. > > It stands as a beacon of cooperation between the citizen and the intermediary, a mechanism through which the State endeavours to combat the growing menace of cybercrime. > > To assail its validity is to misunderstand its purpose. Hence, the challenge is without merit. The judgment in Shreya Singhal, predicated, inter alia, upon the reasoning in Renault, cannot, by judicial alchemy, be transposed into the present controversy. > > Renault itself has been diluted in subsequent pronouncements of the American Supreme Court. Shreya Singhal spoke of 2011 rules now consigned to history. > > The 2021 Rules, fresh in their conception and distinct in their design, demand their own interpretative frame, unsettled by precedents that address the bygone regime. Social media as a modern amphitheater of ideas cannot be left in a state of anarchic freedom. > > Regulation of information in this domain is neither novel nor unique. The United States of America regulates it, every sovereign nation regulates it, and India’s resolve likewise, cannot by any stretch of constitutional imagination we branded as unlawful. > > Unregulated speech under the guise of liberty becomes a license for lawlessness. Regulated speech, by contrast, preserves both liberty and order, the twin pillars upon which democracy must stand. > > No social media platform in the modern day agora may even feign the semblance of exemption from rigour or discipline of the laws of the land. > > None may presume to treat the Indian marketplace as a mere playground where information can be disseminated in defiance of statutes or disregard to legality, and later adopting a posture of detachment or hands-off. > > In the light of the observations made in the course of the order, the content on social media needs to be regulated and its regulation is a must; > > more so in cases of offenses against women in particular, failing which the right to dignity as ordained in the constitution of a citizen gets railroaded. We are a society governed by laws. Order is the architecture of our democracy. > > Every platform that seeks to operate within the jurisdiction of our nation, which they do, must accept that liberty is yoked with responsibility, and the privilege of access carries with it the solemn duty of accountability. > > To hold otherwise is to imperil both the rule of law and the fabric of social harmony. The petitioner’s platform is subject to a regulatory regime in the United States of America, its birthplace and foot land. > > Under the Take It Down Act of the United States, it chooses to follow the said Act as it criminalises the violation of orders of takedown. But the same petitioner refuses to follow the same in the source of this nation of similar takedown orders which are founded upon illegality. > > This is sans countenance. The petition for all the aforesaid reasons lacking in merit stands rejected. The applications of the intervenors, for the very reasons rendered in the course of the order, stand rejected. -end of spoken order- > Note: It's Reno v. ACLU, not Renault. Full written order will be out tomorrow. ## Colophon title:: Thread by @AroonDeep type:: [[full-text]] url:: https://x.com/AroonDeep/status/1970806361685655787 date:: [[2025-09-24]] published:: 2025-09-24T11:07:16.000Z