Law School Uncensored

1. Free Speech Upheld: Bombay HC Strikes Down IT (Amendment) Rules, 2023 (Kunal Kamra & Others)

• Citation: Writ Petition (L) No. 9792 of 2023, Bombay High Court, decision dated 26 September 2024.
• Facts: The amendment to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules in 2023 introduced a “fact-check unit” for content related to government affairs, among other obligations for intermediaries. Petitioners challenged those amendments as violating freedom of speech and expression, among other constitutional rights.
• Ratio decidendi:
  1. Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the IT Rules, 2021 (as amended in 2023) was struck down as being unconstitutional on multiple grounds, specifically for violating Articles 14 (equality), 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression), and 19(1)(g) (freedom to practice any profession) of the Constitution.
  2. The Court held that the amendments exceeded the authority granted under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000. The Rule failed to satisfy the conditions under that Section (i.e. due diligence / safe harbour requirements) and thus was ultra vires (beyond power).
  3. The requirement for content to be labelled “fake, false or misleading” by the fact-check unit (for government affairs) was held vague and capable of arbitrary exercise, thereby imposing a chilling effect. The procedural safeguards were lacking.
• Significance: One of the first major judicial rejections of recent government amendments to the intermediary rules, reaffirming constitutional limits on censorship, government regulation of speech, and reinforcing that intermediaries cannot be required to act in vague or arbitrary ways.

2. ANI Media Private Limited v. Wikimedia Foundation Inc.

• Citation: 2025 INSC 656; SCO.LR 5(2)[7] (Supreme Court of India), judgment dated 9 May 2025.
• Facts: Wikimedia objected to an order from the Delhi High Court that directed it to take down content pertaining to an ongoing legal case (“sub judice matter”) published on its platform by ANI Media. Wikimedia challenged removal, citing freedom of speech and the right to know.
• Ratio decidendi:
  1. A Court can direct removal of online content in respect of sub judice matters only if there is a real and substantial risk to the fairness of judicial proceedings. Mere possibility or speculative risk is insufficient.
  2. The principle of proportionality must be applied: the restriction (i.e. removal) must be necessary, suitable, and the least restrictive means to protect the integrity of judicial process.
  3. Right to Freedom of Speech (Article 19(1)(a)) and the public’s right to know are important, so reasonable restrictions must satisfy constitutional tests of necessity and proportionality.
• Significance: Affirms checks on content takedown requests by media or courts, emphasizing that speech cannot be shut down lightly even in sensitive proceedings; adds clarity on when “sub judice” restrictions justify state or court intervention.

3. Supreme Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Regulatory Board Over OTT Platforms

• Citation: Supreme Court of India, Bench: Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, disposed of PIL on 18 October 2024.
• Facts: Petitioner sought directions to set up a regulatory body/board to monitor, filter, and regulate content on OTT/streaming platforms, arguing that OTT content lacks the same checks as films/TV.
• Ratio decidendi:
  1. The plea raised policy questions rather than legal rights enforceable via PIL under Article 32. The Supreme Court held that establishing a regulatory body is essentially policy, which is the domain of the legislature/executive.
  2. Courts should not preemptively regulate content in new media via PILs; matters relating to regulation of digital media / OTT platforms require “stakeholder consultation” and democratic processes rather than purely judicial intervention.
• Significance: It draws a boundary between judicial review and policy making, showing the Supreme Court is reluctant to create or endorse new regulatory bodies via judicial fiat. Reinforces separation of powers.

4. Karnataka High Court: X Corp. v. Union of India (Sahyog Portal Case)

• Citation: Karnataka High Court, Justice M. Nagaprasanna, order dismissed X Corp’s plea; 29 September 2025.
• Facts: X Corp (formerly Twitter) challenged the constitutional validity of the “Sahyog Portal,” a government portal through which agencies can send takedown notices to intermediaries under the IT Act. X argued that the portal weakens due process and allows arbitrary takedown.
• Ratio decidendi:
  1. The court held that no social media platform is exempted from the law of the land—even if it claims its platform is global or outside direct government control. Intermediaries must comply with valid legal obligations, including takedown notice mechanisms.
  2. The existence of a notice-and-take-down portal (Sahyog) is valid under existing law (IT Act). The challenge was not sufficient to establish that the portal violates constitutional norms, as no compelling evidence was shown that the portal in practice leads to arbitrary or disproportionate violations.
• Significance: Reinforces that intermediaries must not treat Indian users/market as a free zone; also clarifies that governmental portals for content takedown are constitutionally sustainable unless shown otherwise.

Summary Table

Case	Year	Court	Core Legal Issue	Ratio Decidendi
Kunal Kamra & Ors. (Bombay HC, 2024)	2024	Bombay HC	Validity of amendment requiring fact-check units / obligations for content related to government	Amendments violate Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g); exceed Section 79; vague & arbitrary rules impose chilling effect.
Wikimedia Foundation Inc. v. ANI Media Pvt. Ltd.	2025	Supreme Court	Takedown for sub judice content; media / courts removing speech	Courts can order takedown only if real & substantial risk to fairness; must be necessary, proportional; public’s right to know upheld.
Supreme Court rejects PIL for OTT regulatory board	2024	Supreme Court	Whether court should order a regulatory body for OTT content	It is a policy matter, not for the court under Article 32; requires legislative / executive action and stakeholder consultation.
X Corp v. Union of India (Sahyog Portal)	2025	Karnataka HC	Validity of govt-takedown portal for intermediaries	Platforms must comply with national law; Sahyog portal valid; no show of constitutional violation.