Stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra and senior advocate Haresh Jagtiani have approached the Bombay High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Centre’s Sahyog Portal. They argue that the portal enables arbitrary online content takedowns without notice or hearing, violating free speech and Supreme Court safeguards.
Stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra and senior advocate Haresh Jagtiani have moved the Bombay High Court challenging the validity of the Central government’s Sahyog Portal, an online system used to send content takedown directions to internet intermediaries such as X, Meta and YouTube.
The petitioners have also questioned Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023, under which the Sahyog Portal was created.
ALSO READ: Traitor Joke On Eknath Shinde: Kunal Kamra Gets 2nd Legal Notice From Mumbai Police
As per the amended rule, online intermediaries are required to remove or disable access to any information that is allegedly used to commit an unlawful act within thirty-six hours of receiving what is termed as “actual knowledge”.
The rule further states that such communication must clearly mention the legal basis for the action, the specific statutory provision relied upon, the nature of the alleged unlawful act, and the exact online location of the content that is sought to be taken down.
The Sahyog Portal has been introduced as a dedicated cyber platform to automate and speed up this entire process, with the stated objective of enabling quick removal of unlawful online information, data or communication links.
However, according to Kamra’s petition, the portal effectively allows the government to block or take down online content unilaterally, without following mandatory legal safeguards. The plea argues that the system does not require issuance of notice to the original creator of the content, nor does it provide an opportunity of hearing to the affected person.
These safeguards, the petition points out, have been repeatedly recognised by the Supreme Court of India as essential to ensure that content-blocking powers remain constitutional and are not misused.
As stated in the plea filed through advocate Meenaz Kakalia,
“Given the conspicuous absence of such safeguards, Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules and the Sahyog Portal are rendered ultra vires the Information Technology Act, 2000 and contrary to categorical judgments of the Supreme Court and this High Court.”
Kamra has further contended that Rule 3(1)(d) and the Sahyog Portal make all information available on the internet vulnerable to arbitrary takedown orders.
ALSO READ: Kunal Kamra ‘Naya Bharat’ Row Explained: Can Police Legally Summon Show Attendees?
According to him, the framework provides no effective remedy or appeal mechanism against such actions and gives thousands of government officers, both at the Central and State levels, unchecked power over online speech and information flow.
The plea states.
“It strikes at the heart of democracy, and a citizen’s right to information,”
The petition also challenges the constitutional validity of the impugned rule and the portal on the ground that they permit blocking or removal of online content based on vague and undefined grounds such as the information being “unlawful” or in violation of any law administered by the Central or State governments.
The plea argues that such open-ended powers can easily be misused and do not meet constitutional standards.
It has been contended,
“Such powers amount to an unconstitutional and unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech, that go beyond the constitutionally permissible grounds that have been exhaustively enumerated under Article 19(2) of the Constitution,”
According to the petitioners, any order for blocking or disabling access to online information can legally be issued only under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read with the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. They argue that the Sahyog Portal and Rule 3(1)(d) create a parallel mechanism that bypasses this statutory framework.
ALSO READ: Traitor Remark Case | Kunal Kamra Fails To Appear Mumbai Police Summons for Third Time
The challenge before the Bombay High Court also takes note of earlier litigation on the issue. Previously, X had challenged the validity of the Sahyog Portal before the Karnataka High Court.
In September 2025, a single-judge bench led by M Nagaprasanna upheld the validity of the portal. An appeal against that judgment is currently pending before a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court.
The Bombay High Court is now expected to examine whether the Sahyog Portal and the amended IT Rules strike a fair balance between regulating unlawful online content and protecting the fundamental right to free speech guaranteed under the Constitution.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Kunal Kamra
