Kunal Kamra challenges Sahyog Portal, IT Rules amendment in Bombay HC

Comedian Kunal Kamra has approached the Bombay HC challenging the Centre's Sahyog Portal and amended IT Rules, alleging they enable content blocking without safeguards and violate free speech rights

Comedian Kunal Kamra has moved the Bombay High Court questioning the legality of the Union government’s Sahyog Portal and the 2025 amendment to Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

 

What provisions are being challenged by Kamra? 

Kamra’s petition targets provisions that allow social media platforms to be directed to block online content. The challenge comes against the backdrop of an earlier Karnataka High Court ruling in a case brought by X Corp, where the court held that the Sahyog Portal facilitates coordination between intermediaries and government authorities and does not amount to censorship.

 

 

How does Kamra view the amended IT framework? 

In his plea, Kamra argues that the amendment to the IT framework effectively establishes an alternative content-blocking mechanism that bypasses the statutory safeguards prescribed under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

 

Does the petition raise concerns over due process? 

According to the petition, the portal enables takedown directions without prior notice to users, thereby undermining principles of natural justice and constitutionally protected free speech.

 

How does the plea rely on Supreme Court precedent? 

The challenge further contends that Rule 3(1)(d) and the Sahyog Portal are ultra vires the IT Act and inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.

 

Why is Section 79 cited in the challenge? 

It is argued that the measures cannot be justified under Section 79(3)(b) of the Act, as Section 79 merely provides conditional immunity to intermediaries and does not confer independent blocking powers.

 

What constitutional violations are alleged? 

Kamra’s plea alleges that the amended rule and the portal together create a parallel takedown regime without procedural protections mandated by law, rendering them manifestly arbitrary. On constitutional grounds, the provisions are said to violate Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g), without meeting the permissible restrictions under Articles 19(2) and 19(6).

 

What is the issue around delegation of powers? 

The petition also questions the delegation of information-blocking powers to state governments and departments, arguing that such authority lies exclusively with the Union under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.

 

Are there other similar challenges before the court? 

Separately, senior advocate Haresh Jagtiani has filed an independent writ petition before the same court, raising similar constitutional objections to the Sahyog Portal and the amended rule.

 

When will the court hear the matter next? 

The bench has listed both petitions for further consideration on March 16.