Our partner, Shalini Sati Prasad, was recently invited by Lion Amirr Virani to contribute her insights in a episode of The Emerging Lawyer series on The Koffee Conversation Show.
If you are not happy with the results, please do another search
This edition of the JSA Brief showcases JSA authored articles, updates & newsletters and achievements such as deals and events in all practice area over the preceding month (May 2025).
To read further details, click here or refer to the below document.
For more details, please contact [email protected]
*In case the document is not visible on the device you are using, please click the link above.
Our Partner, Sidharth Sethi, was invited as a speaker by the Department of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Law & Justice (DLA MoL&J) and the India International Arbitration Centre (IIAC) at the National Conference on “Institutional Arbitration: An Effective Framework For Dispute Resolution”.
This Conference, held on 14 June 2025 at the Bharat Mandapam, New Delhi was organised by DLA MoL&J in collaboration with IIAC and Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (ONGC).
The keynote address was delivered by Sh. Arjun Ram Meghwal, Hon’ble Minister of State (Independent Charge), MoL&J, in the distinguished presence of Dr. Anju Rathi Rana, Secretary, DLA, Mr. K. Moses Chalai, Secretary, Department of Public Enterprises, Sh. Arun Kumar Singh, Chairman – ONGC and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta (Retd.), Chairperson – IIAC.
Sidharth spoke on the topic, “Best Practices During Arbitral Process: A Discourse”. The other esteemed panellists included:
- Ms. Sandhya Yadav, CGM-Chief Legal Services, ONGC;
- Mr. Amit Jindal, Head-Legal, Directorate General of Hydrocarbons;
- Ms. Smitha Sehgal, DGM (Legal), Engineers India Ltd.;
- Mr. Hasit Seth, Independent Counsel, Arbitrator & Mediator.
The session was moderated by Mr. Vikas Mahendra, Partner, Keystone Partners.
Also present on the occasion were senior officials of DLA and various Central Public Sector Undertakings.
Click here to watch excerpts from Sidharth’s address.
Please click here to download the document.
Takedown or overreach: A legal analysis of X Corp’s challenge to government mandated digital censorship
The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka (“Karnataka HC”) in X Corp. vs. Union of India[1] raises a regulatory challenge within the domain of intermediary liability and content governance. The writ petition filed before the Karnataka HC raises foundational issues around statutory interpretation, executive accountability, and digital free speech under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”).
The case squarely contests the Union Government’s alleged misuse of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act to compel content removal[2], a provision originally crafted to define the limits of intermediary protection, not to confer direct takedown authority.
Brief facts
X Corp (formerly Twitter Inc.), registered as a “significant social media intermediary” under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“IT Rules“), operates a major platform enabling global communication.
The dispute arises from multiple takedown directions issued by the Union Government through the ‘Sahyog’ portal, a centralised interface for law enforcement engagement with intermediaries. According to X Corp, these directions were issued under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, which deals with loss of safe harbour if intermediaries fail to act upon unlawful content once notified.
The petition argues that such actions violate the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) ruling in Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India[3], which held that content removal must comply with Section 69A. The Petitioner also asserts that informal government communications, lacking statutory underpinning, cannot displace due process under Indian law.
Key issues
- Misuse of Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act: X Corp asserts that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act is being wrongfully invoked as a source of takedown power, bypassing Section 69A of the IT Act. Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act merely disqualifies intermediaries from safe harbour if they fail to expeditiously remove content after receiving ‘actual knowledge’ through a lawful order. It does not, by itself, confer power on the executive to issue such orders.
- Unlawful operationalisation of the ‘Sahyog’ portal’: The petition challenges the legal sanctity of the ‘Sahyog’ portal, alleging that it creates an informal enforcement apparatus that bypasses transparency, recordability, and appeal rights. It is argued that such informality is contrary to the rule of law, and inconsistent with Article 14 and Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
- Coercive threats and safe harbour protections: X Corp claims that it has been threatened with withdrawal of safe harbour protections and punitive action unless it complies with requests that lack legal basis. Such coercive tactics, it contends, undermine the principle of non-arbitrariness and chill lawful expression.
Reliefs sought
The petition seeks, among other things:
- a declaration that content takedown directions can only be lawfully issued under Section 69A of the IT Act;
- a direction restraining the Respondents from issuing coercive communications under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act in substitution for statutory processes; and
- an order of interim protection against coercive action for non-compliance with requests made via the ‘Sahyog’ portal.
Current status
The Karnataka HC admitted the petition on March 17, 2025, and issued notice to the Union Government. While interim relief was declined, X Corp has been granted liberty to approach the court in case of any future adverse action. The matter is currently listed for final arguments
The Union of India has since filed a counter affidavit contesting maintainability, asserting that ‘Sahyog’ portal is a coordination tool rather than a censorship mechanism, and that X Corp is evading legitimate regulatory obligations.
Conclusion
This litigation is of considerable consequence for the Indian information technology and digital platform ecosystem, as a ruling in this case could restore the centrality of Section 69A of the IT Act as the exclusive mechanism for content blocking and clarify that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act cannot be misused as a parallel route to compel censorship. Further, this litigation challenges the opacity of digital governance via portals like ‘Sahyog’. Judicial scrutiny may lead to new norms ensuring traceability, accountability, and post-facto judicial review of executive directives.
In Wikimedia Foundation Inc. vs. ANI Media Private Limited[4] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court underscored a critical limitation on takedown of online content. The Supreme Court observed that unless content is prima facie contemptuous of court proceedings, it cannot be removed merely because a judge finds it uncomfortable or inaccurate. This observation by the Supreme Court reinforces the core principle that judicial and executive orders affecting online content must be legally tenable, procedurally fair, and constitutionally sound. The reasoning in Wikimedia Foundation Inc (ibid). powerfully supports X Corp’s argument that takedown orders, whether issued by courts or executive authorities, must be rooted in clear statutory procedures and judicially reviewable reasons.
X Corp vs. Union of India may well become a landmark case in India’s digital constitutionalism. It confronts critical questions about the outer limits of executive power, the role of procedural safeguards, and the resilience of free expression in the age of algorithmic governance. It also builds upon the spirit of the Shreya Singhal (ibid), reiterating that convenience cannot override constitutionalism.
This Prism has been prepared by:
Dheeraj Nair |
Angad Baxi |
Aparna Singh |
For more details, please contact [email protected].
[1] W.P. No. 7405 of 2025
[2] Section 79(3)(b) in The Information Technology Act, 2000
“….(b)upon receiving actual knowledge, or on being notified by the appropriate Government or its agency that any information, data or communication link residing in or connected to a computer resource, controlled by the intermediary is being used to commit the unlawful act, the intermediary fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material on that resource without vitiating the evidence in any manner…”
[3] (2015) 5 SCC 1
[4] SLP(C) No. 7748/2025
Our partner, Divyam Agarwal, along with Associates Aniket Aggarwal and Shailja Rawal, has authored an article titled ‘Liberalisation of the Indian Legal Sector: Small Step or Giant Leap?’. This piece has been published on SCC Online.
This article delves into the evolving landscape of the Indian legal sector, examining whether recent changes represent incremental progress or a significant transformation. It provides a thorough analysis that is sure to engage and inform professionals within the legal community.
Click here to read more to understand the future of our industry.
JSA successfully defended Adani Power Limited (“Adani”) before Supreme Court in getting a Civil Appeal filed by distribution licensees of Rajasthan dismissed. By way of the Judgment dated 23.05.2025, the Supreme Court has laid down the following position of law:
- Rate of Carrying Cost granted as part of restitution on account of Change in Law event –Carrying Cost shall be paid at the rate of Late Payment Surcharge provided under Power Purchase Agreement (“PPA”), on compounding basis.
- Effective date from which Carrying Cost will be paid– from the date the Change in Law occurs i.e., from the date of promulgation of the Change in Law.
- When a Supplementary Bill for Change in Law can be raised – It can be raised only after due adjudication by the competent forum.
- Parameters for entertaining Civil Appeal under Section 125 of Electricity Act, 2003 – When a finding is (1) perverse or (2) rendered contrary to the records, or without assigning any reason, and/or on a total misconception of the fact seen apparently on the face of the record.
- Principle of restitution incorporated into the PPAs, must be given effect to in letter and spirit on account of Change in Law.
The Civil Appeal arose out of a judgment dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (“APTEL”) wherein JSA had successfully represented Adani. Accepting all legal submissions by Adani, APTEL, in such judgment, held that the levy of Evacuation Facility Charges by Coal India qualifies as a Change in Law event, entitling Adani to Carrying Cost at the rate of Late Payment Surcharge, on compounding basis.
Supreme Court’s Judgment dated 23.05.2025 is a ‘landmark’ judgment, since it settles and puts to rest the contentious issues qua ‘Rate’ and ‘Effective Date’ of payment of Carrying Cost on account of Change in Law event. This Judgment applied the principle of restitution in letter and spirit, and clarified the contractual stipulation under the PPA regarding the stage of issuing a Supplementary Bill for Change in Law.
The matter was led by Amit Kapur and Poonam Verma Sengupta (Partners), with support from Saunak Kumar Rajguru (Principal Associate), Subham Bhut and Pradyumn Amit Sharma (Associates).
JSA successfully represented Rain Cements Limited before the Supreme Court and secured an interim order dated May 22, 2025, staying the levy of Grid Support Charges on Captive Power Plants (CPPs) for the financial year 2025–26. This provides interim relief to CPPs in the state of Andhra Pradesh, which were burdened by the imposition of such charges.
By an order dated February 20, 2025, the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) had permitted the distribution licensees of Andhra Pradesh (AP Discoms) to levy Grid Support Charges on CPPs for FY 2025–26. This order was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL). However, by its judgment dated May 13, 2025, APTEL dismissed the appeal. A Civil Appeal was thereafter filed before the Supreme Court.
At the first hearing on May 22, 2025, the Supreme Court noted a prima facie illegality in the levy of Grid Support Charges on CPPs in Andhra Pradesh and accordingly directed that the levy be stayed, subject to the appellant depositing 50% of the claimed amount.
Notably, in earlier civil appeals filed by JSA on behalf of Sarda Metals & Alloys Ltd., the Supreme Court had also granted similar stay orders on October 21, 2024, and November 11, 2024, in relation to the levy of Grid Support Charges for the financial years 2022–23 and 2023–24.
This marks a paradigm shift in the Supreme Court’s approach to the issue of Grid Support Charges on CPPs. In previous cases involving similar levies by other states—such as Madhya Pradesh—the Supreme Court did not provide any interim relief.
Therefore, the interim order dated May 22, 2025, for the FY 2025–26 levy, along with the earlier orders dated October 21, 2024, and November 11, 2024, for FY 2022–23 and FY 2023–24 respectively, constitute a welcome, albeit temporary, relief for CPPs that were otherwise required to pay the entire amount of the charges. This development is also likely to assist other similarly placed CPPs across the sector.
Mr. P. Chidambaram, Senior Advocate, led the arguments, supported by Ms. Poonam Verma Sengupta (Lead Partner), Mr. Saunak Kumar Rajguru (Principal Associate), and Ms. Devisi Bhuwalka (Junior Associate) on behalf of Rain Cements.
The JSA disputes team comprised Lead Partner Poonam Verma Sengupta, Principal Associate Saunak Kumar Rajguru, and Junior Associate Devisi Bhuwalka.
This edition of the JSA Brief showcases JSA authored articles, updates & newsletters and achievements such as deals and events in all practice area over the preceding month (April 2025).
To read further details, click here or refer to the below document.
For more details, please contact [email protected]
*In case the document is not visible on the device you are using, please click the link above.
Watch the insightful discussion on the evolving landscape of real estate investment in India. Our Partner and Co-Chair of the Disputes Practice, Farid Karachiwala, engages in a compelling conversation with Ali Lokhandwala, Managing Director of Lokhandwala Infrastructure, exploring the next phase of property investment opportunities and challenges in the region.
In this exclusive video, filmed on the sidelines of the JSA Mint India Investment Summit, Farid and Ali dissect the key trends that are set to shape the future of real estate investment in India. Their expert analysis provides valuable perspectives for industry professionals keen on understanding market dynamics and strategic investment approaches.
Watch this enlightening exchange and gain a deeper understanding of India’s property market trajectory.
Please click here to download the document.
Delhi High Court holds that truthful and scientifically backed content shared in good faith by social media influencers is not defamation or disparagement
A single judge of the Delhi High Court (“Delhi HC”) in San Nutrition Private Limited vs. Arpit Mangal and Ors.[1], while rejecting grant of an interim injunction, has held that influencers are not liable for defamation or disparagement when the information shared by them is true, not misleading and without malicious intent.
Brief facts
Arpit Mangal (“Defendant No. 1”), a social media influencer, published videos on the YouTube platform inter alia reviewing DC Doctor’s Choice Iso Pro (“Product”) marketed by San Nutrition Private Limited (“Plaintiff”). Defendant No. 1’s videos on the Product were based on independent laboratory reports (“Lab Reports”) and comparison with other competitor products in the market. Relying solely upon Defendant No. 1’s videos, Kabir Grover (“Defendant No. 2”) and Manish Keswani (“Defendant No. 3”) posted similar videos on YouTube. Avijit Roy (“Defendant No. 4”) also published videos on the Product after self-testing it with a kit developed by a competitor brand and used Plaintiff’s mark in the thumbnail of the videos.
Being aggrieved by these videos published by Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 (“Impugned Videos”) which showed the Plaintiff and the Product in negative light, the Plaintiff filed a suit along with an interim injunction application. While Defendant No. 1 appeared and opposed the interim injunction application, Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 did not appear before the Delhi HC.
In the interim injunction application, the Plaintiff inter alia contended that: (a) the Impugned Videos contained false, malicious and misleading statements about the Plaintiff and the Product with an attempt to defame and disparage; (b) the damage caused to the Plaintiff was visible from the negative comments/reviews on the Impugned Videos, e-commerce websites along with the decline in the sales of the Product; and (c) the Impugned Videos contain the name/pictures/videos of the Product and also shows the Plaintiff’s mark which amounts to unauthorised and wrongful use of Plaintiff’s trademark and copyright.
Defendant No. 1 inter alia contended that the statements made in his videos were: (a) fair comments issued in public interest, based on scientific evidence, and were protected under the right to exercise freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India (“Constitution”); and (b) based on truth substantiated by verifiable Lab Reports accredited under applicable laws. Defendant No. 1 also contended that the use of Plaintiff’s marks in his videos was covered under fair use and does not violate the Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights.
Issue
Whether the Impugned Videos were defamatory, disparaging and infringed upon the Plaintiff’s trademarks?
Findings and Analysis
The Delhi HC rejected the Plaintiff’s interim application and inter alia observed as follows:
- in cases of defamation, the defence of truth or justification has been recognised as a complete defence and the onus of proving the truth of the statement is on the defendant.[2] The defence of truth cannot be defeated solely on account of malice;[3]
- the defence of fair comment applies if the defendant establishes that: (a) he believed the statements to be correct based on the facts available to him; and (b) there was no malice behind the statements. The onus of proving malice in such cases lies on the plaintiff;[4]
- commercial speech is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. However, if such speech is deceptive, unfair, misleading or untruthful, it would be restricted under Article 19(2) of the Constitution.[5] Further, commercial speech would amount to disparagement if the 3 (three) fold test of falsehood, malicious intent and special damage is established by the plaintiff;[6] and
- as upheld by the Supreme Court of India, the threshold for grant of interim injunctions in cases of defamation and disparagement is based on the Bonnard principle.[7] As per the Bonnard principle, interim injunctions in cases of defamation and disparagement should not be granted unless the defence set up by the defendant is eventually bound to fail in trial; and
- for any case on infringement under Section 29A of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, a defendant would have to use the plaintiff’s registered trademark in the course of his trade or commercially exploit the same.[8]
Based on the above principles and in the facts of the case, the Hon’ble Delhi HC prima facie held that the Plaintiff had failed to discharge its burden of proof in establishing that the statements made in the Impugned Videos were palpably false, misleading, malicious and/or were bound to fail at the stage of trial. Further, the Delhi HC also ruled that the Plaintiff had failed to establish a case for infringement of its intellectual property rights. Accordingly, the Delhi HC held that Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 were entitled to protection of free speech under the Constitution.
Conclusion
This decision highlights the need to strike a careful balance between protecting the right to freedom of speech and expression of social media influencers and preserving the reputation of businesses in an increasingly digital landscape. It underscores the importance of fostering a harmonious coexistence between individual expression and corporate honesty in the era of social media. Notably, the ruling gains further significance as it deals with circumstances for grant of an interim injunction, a form of immediate relief that businesses often seek when facing potential defamation or brand disparagement.
This Prism is prepared by:
|
Farhad Sorabjee |
Pratik Pawar |
Shanaya Cyrus Irani |
Sanjana Pandey |
For more details, please contact [email protected]
[1] 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2701
[2] Pankaj Oswal vs. Vikas Pahwa, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1193
[3] 2006 SCC OnLine Del 14
[4] Tata Sons vs. Greenpeace, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 466
[5] Tata Press vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, (1995) 5 SCC 139,
[6] Dabur India vs. Colortek Meghalaya, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 3940
[7] Bloomberg Television vs. Zee Entertainment, (2025) 1 Supreme Court Cases 741; Bonnard vs. Perryman, [1891] 95 All ER 965.
[8] Tata Sons vs. Greenpeace, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 466
