Kunal Kamra challenges IT rules and Sahyog portal in Bombay High Court

Comedian Kunal Kamra, along with Senior Advocate Haresh Jagtiani, has approached the Bombay High Court to challenge the constitutional validity of the 'Sahyog Portal' and the 2025 amendment to Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 [3, 18]. The petitions contend that these provisions enable the arbitrary blocking or takedown of online content without adhering to mandatory legal requirements, thereby posing a significant threat to freedom of speech and expression [4, 9, 12]. The 'Sahyog Portal', developed by India's Ministry of Home Affairs and maintained by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), was launched in October 2024. Its stated purpose is to automate and streamline the process of issuing content takedown notices to online intermediaries like X, Meta, and YouTube, facilitating the quick removal of 'unlawful' content [10, 17]. However, Kamra and Jagtiani argue that the portal allows the government to unilaterally block or take down content without issuing notice to the originator, providing an opportunity for a hearing, or passing a reasoned order [9, 15]. They assert that these procedural safeguards, mandated by the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India case, are crucial for ensuring the constitutionality of such provisions [9, 15, 21]. The amendment to Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, which came into effect on November 15, 2025, purportedly introduces additional safeguards for transparent, proportionate, and accountable removal of unlawful content [4, 7]. However, the petitioners claim that this amendment, along with the Sahyog Portal, creates a parallel content-blocking framework that circumvents the procedural safeguards mandated under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 [15]. They argue that these mechanisms empower government officials to issue takedown or blocking orders peremptorily, without following the due process stipulated in the IT Act [5, 12, 26]. Kamra's plea highlights that such powers are an unconstitutional and unreasonable restriction on freedom of speech, exceeding the permissible grounds under Article 19(2) of the Constitution [4, 12]. The petitioners further contend that the amended rules and the portal violate their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and 19(1)(g) (freedom to practice any profession, occupation, trade, or business), as well as Article 14 (equality before the law) [4, 9, 21]. They argue that these provisions are ultra vires the IT Act and in contravention of established Supreme Court judgments [9, 15, 21]. The petitions seek to have the Sahyog Portal and the amended IT Rule 3(1)(d) struck down and declared illegal, unconstitutional, and void [4, 18]. They also seek interim relief, including the suspension of the Sahyog Portal's operation and a directive to prevent government officers from ordering content takedowns without adhering to the mandated procedures [6]. The Bombay High Court is scheduled to hear the matter on March 16 [4]. This legal challenge comes in the wake of previous legal battles concerning IT rules. Notably, in September 2024, the Bombay High Court had struck down previous amended IT Rules that allowed the government to establish a Fact Check Unit (FCU), a verdict in which Kamra and others were also petitioners [4]. The current challenge underscores ongoing concerns in India regarding online content regulation, the scope of government power, and the protection of digital freedoms.

Frequently Asked Questions

Read Full Story on Quick Digest