Comedian Kunal Kamra and Senior Advocate Challenge IT Rule Amendments and Sahyog Portal in Bombay High Court
In a significant legal development, stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra and Mumbai-based senior advocate Haresh Jagtiani have filed separate petitions before the Bombay High Court, challenging the constitutional validity of a recently amended rule under the Information Technology Act and the legality of the government's cyber portal 'Sahyog'. The petitions argue that these measures empower authorities to conduct "unilateral takedown" of online content without adequate legal safeguards.
Legal Challenge Against Rule 3(1)(d) and Sahyog Portal
The petitions specifically target Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Amendment Rules, 2023), as amended in October 2025, and the Sahyog portal established by the Centre. Senior counsel Navroz Seervai represented Jagtiani, while counsel Arti Raghavan appeared for Kamra during the mention before a division bench comprising Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Abhay Mantri on Friday.
The bench has posted the matter for circulation on March 16, indicating the court's recognition of the petitions' importance. The legal documents were filed through advocate Meenaz Kakalia, who presented detailed arguments about the constitutional implications of the challenged provisions.
Constitutional Violations Alleged
The petitions contend that the amended rule and portal create a parallel takedown regime that bypasses established legal procedures. According to the legal challenge, these measures:
- Violate Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of speech and freedom to practice any profession
- Do not fall within the constitutionally permitted exceptions to these fundamental rights
- Establish a system that operates without the safeguards mandated by Section 69A of the IT Act and the Blocking Rules
The petitions argue that this represents a "flagrant violation" of constitutional protections and creates a system that is "manifestly arbitrary" in its operation.
Absence of Legal Safeguards
Kamra's petition highlights several critical deficiencies in the current framework. The Sahyog portal allegedly operates without:
- Issuing notice to content originators
- Providing hearings to affected parties
- Passing reasoned orders before blocking online content
The petition references the Supreme Court's 2015 judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, which struck down vague and over-broad provisions in law. According to the petitioners, the current amendments and portal contravene this landmark judgment and subsequent court rulings that have emphasized the necessity of procedural safeguards.
Broader Impact Than Previous Challenges
The petitions argue that the amendments have a "much wider impact" than even the Fact Check Unit (FCU) provision, which was successfully challenged earlier before the high court by Kamra and others. While the FCU case addressed government powers regarding unilateral takedowns, the current challenge targets what petitioners describe as an even more expansive and problematic framework.
The legal documents state that "Rule 3(1)(d) and the Sahyog Portal are wholly illegal and ultra vires the IT Act", meaning they exceed the authority granted by the legislation they purport to implement.
Relief Sought from the Court
The petitioners have requested several forms of relief from the Bombay High Court:
- Interim directions to suspend the operation of the Sahyog Portal
- Restraint on central and state government officers from directing content blocking or takedown without following Section 69A procedures
- A declaration that blocking orders can only be issued under Section 69A of the IT Act read with the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by public) Rules, 2009
The case represents another chapter in the ongoing legal debate about balancing online content regulation with constitutional freedoms in India's digital landscape.
