The Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) stated it does not hold records related to the Sahyog Portal, including notices issued, actions taken, or investigation outcomes, according to a response to a Right to Information (RTI) application. The portal's data is maintained by respective State and Union Territory police authorities or issuing agencies, with I4C’s role limited to facilitation, the RTI reply said.
I4C’s clarification came after MediaNama filed the RTI seeking detailed operational data on the Sahyog Portal. The agency emphasized that it does not control such data, which is held by local law enforcement. The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, described the portal as a facilitation mechanism during arguments before the Karnataka High Court, which upheld the portal’s validity and rejected claims of it being an instrument of censorship.
The Karnataka High Court judgment highlighted the Sahyog Portal’s purpose as streamlining communication between authorized agencies and intermediaries, addressing challenges like lack of reliable contact information, duplication of notices, delays, and absence of accountability. The court found the portal’s justification acceptable, noting that its name, meaning cooperation, reflects its role as a centralized platform for coordination rather than control.
The RTI response and court ruling together clarify that the Sahyog Portal functions solely as a facilitation tool, with operational data managed by state-level authorities. This distinction is significant for understanding the portal’s scope and limits in India’s cybercrime response framework.