Year that was: Judicial intervention, legislative silence, executive overreach

IN 2025, the mysore, Kerala, Madras, and Telangana heights courts took up issues of digital governance, such as who controls online spoken language, how far the say put up go in regulating social media, and what role courts must play in protecting citizens from harm.The Karnataka high court’s ruling upholding the Union government’s Sahyog portal emerged as the most significant development. The verdict, passed by a single judge, endorsed executive control over online takedowns and put the court at the centre of a debate on platform regulation and free speech.Other southern high courts examined the same ecosystem from different angles. The Madras high court flagged the absence of robust child-safety laws online. It urged Parliament to consider age-based restrictions on social media access.The Kerala high court ordered the swift removal of harmful content involving minors, prioritising dignity and immediacy over platform autonomy.The Telangana high court focused on digital governance and criminalisation of online speech. It directed the state to make official orders accessible online and laid down safeguards for registering cases based on social media posts and comments. Such judicial intervention was primarily caused by legislative silence and executive overreach.While dismissing X Corp’s plea challenging content moderation rules, the Karnataka high court said in its September 2025 judgement that the Information Technology Act was formulated before social media existed. Since then, in the absence of comprehensive parliamentary reform, regulation has expanded through rules, guidelines, and administrative portals, often without strong procedural safeguards. This ends up repeatedly pushing courts into the role of constitutional watchdogs.In its judgment on X Corp’s plea, the Karnataka high court also pointed to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India as the clearest illustration of this tension. The apex court did not frame an internet policy. It struck down vague provisions that restricted free speech, and it insisted on reasonable safeguards.Two decades later, high courts continue to preside over the same problem, as executive takedown and content moderation mechanisms continue to operate in legal grey areas.The X Corp case brought these concerns to a head. Sahyog functions as a centralised portal through which government agencies issue content takedown directions to social media intermediaries. X Corp challenged the system, arguing that it lacked statutory backing and procedural safeguards, and that it allowed the government to bypass Section 69A of the IT Act, which governs formal blocking orders and includes limited procedural protections.X argued that by relying on Section 79(3)(b), which conditions an intermediary’s safe-harbour protection on compliance with lawful government directions, the government had created a parallel and opaque censorship regime.The Karnataka high court rejected the challenge. It upheld Sahyog as a lawful administrative mechanism and characterised it as a coordination and facilitation tool rather than a platform that independently exercises censorship powers. The court held that Section 79(3)(b) can operate alongside Section 69A and that the existence of Sahyog does not dilute or replace the statutory blocking framework.On free speech, the court took a narrow view. It emphasised that Article 19(1)(a) guarantees apply only to citizens, not to foreign corporations such as X Corp. It rejected comparisons with US free speech jurisprudence, underlining that online expression in India remains subject to reasonable restrictions under domestic law.The court reiterated that the Supreme Court’s Shreya Singhal judgement had limited application in the post-2021 intermediary rules regime. It signalled that the safeguards highlighted in that judgment do not automatically govern all contemporary takedown mechanisms.The ruling carried implications far beyond the immediate dispute. By upholding Sahyog, the court strengthened the executive’s hand in directing platforms to remove content, even as critics warned about opacity. It also signalled a growing judicial willingness to grant the government significant latitude in regulating online spaces when legislative guidance remains thin.The judgment raised concerns that safeguards against arbitrary censorship could weaken, particularly as takedowns increasingly occur swiftly and without public visibility. X Corp has challenged the judgement and will be heard by a division bench in the new year.The Madras high court, while hearing a public interest petition on children’s access to online pornography, urged the Union government to consider legislation similar to Australia’s law restricting social media access for children under 16. The court stopped short of issuing binding directions. But its observations amounted to a clear policy signal. Judges acknowledged that existing legal frameworks fail to address the scale and nature of online harm faced by minors.The court framed social media regulation not only as a free speech issue but as a child protection and public health concern. The judicial concern filled a vacuum created by legislative delay, even at the risk of blurring the line between adjudication and policymaking.The Kerala high court adopted a more tightly focused, harm-based approach. In cases involving obscene or abusive content targeting minors, the court directed platforms to remove the material immediately. It stressed the urgency and irreversibility of online harm and placed individual dignity and safety above debates over platform autonomy or executive power.The Telangana high court directed the state government to upload all government orders and circulars on its official website, reinforcing citizens’ right to access state action in a digital administrative system. It issued guidelines on registering FIRs for social media posts and comments, responding to concerns over the routine criminalisation of online speech.The court cautioned police against mechanically invoking penal provisions and stressed the need to assess intent, context, and the threshold of offence. The directions sought to prevent the misuse of criminal law to silence dissent or unpopular expression in fast-moving online spaces.The decisions reflect an uneven but increasingly active judicial engagement. No single doctrine governs how courts approach social media regulation, digital harm, or platform accountability.