Media Nama: New Delhi: Thursday, 11 September 2025.
The government is
extending the Sahyog portal beyond its earlier focus on social media
intermediaries and into e-commerce. This expansion brings new challenges.
First, the Right to Information (RTI) reply that MediaNama received withheld
the government’s communications with companies, citing Section 8(1)(a) of the
RTI Act. Consequently, it is unclear whether platforms are being told to join
voluntarily or not.
Moreover, onboarding raises a compliance dilemma. Many e-commerce marketplaces operate under Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) rules that prohibit them from directly or indirectly altering seller content. Sahyog, however, requires platforms to respond to takedown notices about unlawful listings.
In practice, this expectation could push marketplaces into actions that conflict with FDI restrictions. The fact that the RTI reply confirms all onboarding is happening manually also shows the process is still rudimentary.
Notably, Ola and Uber are absent from the list despite their history of safety-related complaints. In December 2024, a Gurugram woman reported that Ola’s in-app SOS button failed when she tried to use it in a threatening situation, forcing her to flee the cab.
She later told MediaNama that her complaint went unanswered for more than 24 hours. Such incidents highlight the risks associated with ride-hailing services and illustrate where Sahyog could help by fast-tracking law enforcement requests for driver details or enforcing compliance with safety rules. The fact that the RTI reply does not mention Ola and Uber makes the application of Sahyog appear selective.
Finally, all this is unfolding while the portal itself remains contested in court. X (formerly Twitter) has argued before the Karnataka High Court (HC) that Sahyog bypasses the safeguards built into Section 69A of the IT Act and Shreya Singhal ruling. Nevertheless, the government continues to expand Sahyog without clarifying these legal concerns.
What’s the News
The government has revealed the names of eleven e-commerce companies that are onboarding the Sahyog portal manually in response to an RTI that MediaNama filed. The RTI reply named Nykaa, Zomato, Blinkit, Flipkart, Amazon, Urban Company, Shiprocket, Reliance Retail, OLX India, Meesho, and Indiamart, and then added “etc.”
This wording indicates that more companies are involved. Notably, the reply did not provide the date of onboarding for these platforms.
For context, MediaNama filed the RTI seeking details of which e-commerce companies had onboarded or were in the process of onboarding the Sahyog portal as of August 6, 2025.
We asked for the date of onboarding (if applicable), mode of integration, and the current status of onboarding. The RTI also sought copies of government communications sent by the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C) or the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) to e-commerce platforms.
The government refused to release copies of its letters or notices to the platforms. It invoked Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, which exempts disclosure if it can harm sovereignty, security, foreign relations, or lead to incitement of an offence. Instead, the government directed MediaNama to a public notice on the National Cybercrime Reporting Portal (NCRP).
Notably, this reply gives the first official confirmation that e-commerce companies are joining the Sahyog Portal. However, the RTI reply leaves out Ola and Uber, despite their prominence as consumer-facing platforms.
Elsewhere, Hindustan Times reported in August that the government had asked companies to join the the Sahyog Portal, naming only Amazon, Flipkart, and Myntra among those being considered.
Legal and Policy Context:
IT Act and Sahyog PORTAL
The Sahyog portal was launched in 2024 to centralise takedown requests under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). Section 79 grants safe harbour to intermediaries, shielding them from liability for third-party content. However, under Section 79(3)(b), intermediaries lose this protection if they fail to remove unlawful content after receiving government notices.
Through Sahyog, authorised nodal officers can issue takedown requests. If platforms do not comply, agencies may escalate under Rule 7 of the IT Rules, 2021. This rule states that an intermediary that fails to observe the IT Rules will lose its safe harbour protection under Section 79. Consequently, the Sahyog Portal creates significant liability risks for companies brought into the system.
In contrast, Section 69A of the IT Act allows the government to block content, but also mandates procedural safeguards. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court (SC) highlighted the importance of these safeguards.
Elsewhere, X (formerly Twitter) has argued in the Karnataka HC that Sahyog sidesteps these protections and enables the government to enforce takedown requests without oversight. The government, however, has defended Sahyog as a solution to law enforcement challenges such as unreliable contact points and delayed platform responses.
FDI Rules and E-commerce
For e-commerce firms, the conflict goes beyond intermediary liability. To begin with, Press Note 2 (2018) governs their operations and permits 100% FDI only in the marketplace model, not the inventory model. Under this framework, marketplaces cannot directly or indirectly influence seller listings or prices. They may only provide a platform for third-party sellers.
Moreover, the DPIIT issued these rules because companies were influencing sales and operating as disguised inventory players. As a result, the rules legally bar marketplaces from intervening in sellers’ listings or prices.
However, Sahyog creates a direct contradiction here. The portal will requires platforms to act on takedown notices and remove listings of its sellers potentially. In contrast, FDI rules prohibit the manipulation of seller listings or prices in any manner.
Also, because onboarding is still happening manually, the process remains unstructured. Consequently, platforms face greater risk of being pushed into directly intervening with respect to sellers’ listings without safeguards or clear policy guidance. This reality sharpens the conflict with FDI rules and shows how the issue remains unresolved.
Why This Matters
The RTI reply highlights how quickly Sahyog is becoming a central instrument of digital governance. What began as a tool for handling unlawful content on social media is now reaching into sectors as varied as retail, logistics, and online services. Consequently, the scope of government intervention online is expanding from speech regulation into everyday commercial transactions.
Furthermore, the use of “etc.” in the reply indicates that more companies may already be involved but remain unnamed. This lack of clarity prevents both the industry and the public from understanding the true breadth of Sahyog’s reach. For users, this matters because their interactions with online marketplaces could now be subject to the same opaque takedown machinery that already governs social media.
Finally, the silence on Ola and Uber points to a deeper inconsistency. These platforms have faced repeated questions about passenger safety, and law enforcement could have used Sahyog to secure faster access to driver records, trip details, or safety compliance. Their exclusion highlights the piecemeal way in which the portal is being expanded.
Moreover, onboarding raises a compliance dilemma. Many e-commerce marketplaces operate under Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) rules that prohibit them from directly or indirectly altering seller content. Sahyog, however, requires platforms to respond to takedown notices about unlawful listings.
In practice, this expectation could push marketplaces into actions that conflict with FDI restrictions. The fact that the RTI reply confirms all onboarding is happening manually also shows the process is still rudimentary.
Notably, Ola and Uber are absent from the list despite their history of safety-related complaints. In December 2024, a Gurugram woman reported that Ola’s in-app SOS button failed when she tried to use it in a threatening situation, forcing her to flee the cab.
She later told MediaNama that her complaint went unanswered for more than 24 hours. Such incidents highlight the risks associated with ride-hailing services and illustrate where Sahyog could help by fast-tracking law enforcement requests for driver details or enforcing compliance with safety rules. The fact that the RTI reply does not mention Ola and Uber makes the application of Sahyog appear selective.
Finally, all this is unfolding while the portal itself remains contested in court. X (formerly Twitter) has argued before the Karnataka High Court (HC) that Sahyog bypasses the safeguards built into Section 69A of the IT Act and Shreya Singhal ruling. Nevertheless, the government continues to expand Sahyog without clarifying these legal concerns.
What’s the News
The government has revealed the names of eleven e-commerce companies that are onboarding the Sahyog portal manually in response to an RTI that MediaNama filed. The RTI reply named Nykaa, Zomato, Blinkit, Flipkart, Amazon, Urban Company, Shiprocket, Reliance Retail, OLX India, Meesho, and Indiamart, and then added “etc.”
This wording indicates that more companies are involved. Notably, the reply did not provide the date of onboarding for these platforms.
For context, MediaNama filed the RTI seeking details of which e-commerce companies had onboarded or were in the process of onboarding the Sahyog portal as of August 6, 2025.
We asked for the date of onboarding (if applicable), mode of integration, and the current status of onboarding. The RTI also sought copies of government communications sent by the Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C) or the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) to e-commerce platforms.
The government refused to release copies of its letters or notices to the platforms. It invoked Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, which exempts disclosure if it can harm sovereignty, security, foreign relations, or lead to incitement of an offence. Instead, the government directed MediaNama to a public notice on the National Cybercrime Reporting Portal (NCRP).
Notably, this reply gives the first official confirmation that e-commerce companies are joining the Sahyog Portal. However, the RTI reply leaves out Ola and Uber, despite their prominence as consumer-facing platforms.
Elsewhere, Hindustan Times reported in August that the government had asked companies to join the the Sahyog Portal, naming only Amazon, Flipkart, and Myntra among those being considered.
Legal and Policy Context:
IT Act and Sahyog PORTAL
The Sahyog portal was launched in 2024 to centralise takedown requests under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). Section 79 grants safe harbour to intermediaries, shielding them from liability for third-party content. However, under Section 79(3)(b), intermediaries lose this protection if they fail to remove unlawful content after receiving government notices.
Through Sahyog, authorised nodal officers can issue takedown requests. If platforms do not comply, agencies may escalate under Rule 7 of the IT Rules, 2021. This rule states that an intermediary that fails to observe the IT Rules will lose its safe harbour protection under Section 79. Consequently, the Sahyog Portal creates significant liability risks for companies brought into the system.
In contrast, Section 69A of the IT Act allows the government to block content, but also mandates procedural safeguards. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court (SC) highlighted the importance of these safeguards.
Elsewhere, X (formerly Twitter) has argued in the Karnataka HC that Sahyog sidesteps these protections and enables the government to enforce takedown requests without oversight. The government, however, has defended Sahyog as a solution to law enforcement challenges such as unreliable contact points and delayed platform responses.
FDI Rules and E-commerce
For e-commerce firms, the conflict goes beyond intermediary liability. To begin with, Press Note 2 (2018) governs their operations and permits 100% FDI only in the marketplace model, not the inventory model. Under this framework, marketplaces cannot directly or indirectly influence seller listings or prices. They may only provide a platform for third-party sellers.
Moreover, the DPIIT issued these rules because companies were influencing sales and operating as disguised inventory players. As a result, the rules legally bar marketplaces from intervening in sellers’ listings or prices.
However, Sahyog creates a direct contradiction here. The portal will requires platforms to act on takedown notices and remove listings of its sellers potentially. In contrast, FDI rules prohibit the manipulation of seller listings or prices in any manner.
Also, because onboarding is still happening manually, the process remains unstructured. Consequently, platforms face greater risk of being pushed into directly intervening with respect to sellers’ listings without safeguards or clear policy guidance. This reality sharpens the conflict with FDI rules and shows how the issue remains unresolved.
Why This Matters
The RTI reply highlights how quickly Sahyog is becoming a central instrument of digital governance. What began as a tool for handling unlawful content on social media is now reaching into sectors as varied as retail, logistics, and online services. Consequently, the scope of government intervention online is expanding from speech regulation into everyday commercial transactions.
Furthermore, the use of “etc.” in the reply indicates that more companies may already be involved but remain unnamed. This lack of clarity prevents both the industry and the public from understanding the true breadth of Sahyog’s reach. For users, this matters because their interactions with online marketplaces could now be subject to the same opaque takedown machinery that already governs social media.
Finally, the silence on Ola and Uber points to a deeper inconsistency. These platforms have faced repeated questions about passenger safety, and law enforcement could have used Sahyog to secure faster access to driver records, trip details, or safety compliance. Their exclusion highlights the piecemeal way in which the portal is being expanded.
.JPG)
.JPG)
