Shabana vs Govt Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors.

“15.

The report also states that all States and Union Territories as also two central agencies namely the Ministry of Finance (DGGI) and the Ministry of Defence have notified the authorised agency/nodal officers under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter “IT Act”) and they have also onboarded on the SAHYOG portal. It is, further, submitted that the phase two development of the portal for data disclosure requests is also underway. Mr. Jitender Singh, ACP from the I4C submits that within a month this development would also be concluded for data disclosure requests.

16.

Insofar as Meta is concerned, Mr. Arvind Datar Sr. Adv., and Mr. Kapil Sibal Sr. Adv., appearing for Facebook and Whatsapp respectively, submit that the process of API integration for both Facebook and WhatsApp is underway and the same would be concluded very soon.”

Issues of X Corp. (earlier Twitter) qua SAHYOG Portal

17.

Insofar as X Corp (earlier Twitter) is concerned, they have taken the position vide letter dated 11^th November, 2024 submitted to I4C that in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singal v. Union of India, 2015 (5) SCC 1, the SAHYOG portal would fall outside the statutory scheme of Section 69A of the IT Act. It is their case that the said portal would create a parallel mechanism to the existing mechanism under Section 69A of the IT Act albeit without any procedures or safeguards. Thus, it is stated that X Corp cannot be compelled to come on the SAHYOG portal. It is also stated that X Corp has its own portal to process valid legal requests.

18.

I4C agency has followed up with X Corp and various meetings have been held with X Corp. However, the stand of X Corp. remains that they are not bound to come on the SAHYOG portal.

19.

The I4C agency has a grievance against platform X on the ground that even in the past when requests have been made in respect of sexual offences against children, such as child sexual exploitation and abuse material (hereinafter “CSEAM”) content, no response has been received from X Corp. This is contained in paragraphs 9 & 10 of the status report which read as under:

“9.

That, in response to the aforesaid MoM dated 25.12.2024, the X Corp. has informed 14C vide email dated 07.01.2025 wherein X reiterated its previous stance that Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 ("IT Act") is the only statutory power for information blocking. Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act does not provide authority to order information blocking and establishing the contemplated portal to order information blocking would also create an impermissible parallel mechanism to the already existing Section 69A mechanism, but without the procedures or safeguards of Section 69A. This would contravene the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Shreya Singhal.

10.

It is pertinent to mention that there have been instances of hosting unlawful information on the X's platform. 14C has proactively identified such unlawful information including "child sexual exploitation and abuse material" (CSEAM) content and sent notices u/s 79(3)(b) of IT Act, 2000 r/w rule 3(1)(d) of IT Intermediary Rule 2021, for removal and disabling of such information. Till date X has not communicated any compliance to a notice issued by 14C on 17.12.2024. Section 69A of IT Act 2000 provides for blocking of access under specific circumstances which is defined in the section itself. Contents like CSEAM do not fit in under those circumstances and hence requests for removing/ disabling CSEAM and other unlawful content not fitting in can be sent for blocking under section 69A of the IT Act 2000. The IT intermediaries have been casted with proactive obligation for suo motto removal of such unlawful contents including CSEAM under Rule 3 ( 1 )(b) of IT intermediaries Rule 2021. However, CSEAM and other unlawful contents have been found hosted on the X platform. It is a bounden duty of the authorized agencies notified by the appropriate Governments to get such unlawful contents removed in the interest of the society exercising the legal provision provided under section 79(3)(b) of IT Act 2000 and Rule 3(1)(d) of IT Intermediary Rules 2021.”

20.

The submission of I4C, therefore, is that even platform X Corp. ought to come on board the SAHYOG portal.

21.

Mr. Akhil Sibal, ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for X Corp. submits that platform X has also filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court challenging the SAHYOG portal. Be that as it may, the objections for onboarding on the SAHYOG portal on behalf of X Corp. shall be heard on the next date of hearing.

22.

Insofar as the objections relating to the CSEAM, content is concerned, Mr. Akhil Sibal, ld. Sr. Counsel submits that the objectionable content was taken down within 24 hours as per the IT Act and, thus, X Corp. had duly complied with the concerned order.”

“8.

In light of the above, it is respectfully submitted that I4C has made all reasonable efforts to engage with the concerned intermediaries, particularly X Corp., to facilitate their onboarding onto the SAHYOG portal, as per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court. However, despite multiple follow-ups, X Corp. instead of onboarding is questioning the validity of notices issued under section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000 r/w Rule 3(1)(d) of IT intermediary Rule, 2021, and filed a Writ Petition before Hon'ble Court of the Karnataka at Bengaluru bench. In response, the Union of India has filed a comprehensive Statement of Objections on 27.03.2025, contesting the claims made by X Corp and justifying its actions based on prevailing laws and public interest considerations.”

Directions

“9.

Therefore, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court may issue direction to the remaining intermediaries for expeditious onboarding, on the Sahyog portal, a centralized portal which brings on board all the authorized agencies/nodal officers and IT intermediaries and thereby facilitates:-

a)

the process of issuance of notices to IT intermediaries to remove or disable access to any information, data, or communication link that is being used to commit unlawful acts under section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act 2000, for keeping the cyberspace safe;

b)

raising data disclosure request by LEAs;

c)

proactively notifying the Child Sexual Exploitative and Abuse Material (CSEAM) content to IT Intermediaries hosted/displayed on their platform for removal or disable access to such content/material, in compliance with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of, “Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. Vs. S. Harish & Ors. SLP(Crl) No. 003665-003666/2024.

d)

assures transparency of the entire process and accountability on the part of all the stakeholders.”