Comedian Kunal Kamra Approaches High Court Against 'Sahyog' Portal

Stand-up comedian and political satirist Kunal Kamra has approached the Bombay High Court challenging 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, contending that they enable unlawful and arbitrary blocking of online content.

In his writ petition, Kamra has impleaded the Union of India, the Ministry of Law and Justice, and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), which created the Sahyog Portal in collaboration with the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Kamra argues that the Sahyog Portal establishes a parallel content-blocking regime that bypasses the statutory safeguards under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Blocking Rules framed under it. He submits that blocking or takedown of online content can only be carried out through Section 69A, which mandates procedural protections such as prior notice, an opportunity of hearing, and a reasoned order - safeguards that are absent under the impugned framework.

The petition contends that Rule 3(1)(d), as amended, is ultra vires the IT Act, as Section 79 of the Act, which provides safe-harbour protection to intermediaries, does not confer any independent power on the government to order content blocking.

According to the plea, the Sahyog Portal allows thousands of central and state government officers to issue blocking or takedown directions unilaterally, without oversight, notice, or reasons, in contrast to the multi-tier review mechanism prescribed under the Blocking Rules. Kamra argues that MeitY has no authority to delegate blocking powers to state governments or local police officers.

The petition further alleges that the portal's operation is manifestly arbitrary, violates principles of natural justice, and infringes Article 14 of the Constitution. It also claims that the regime has a chilling effect on free speech, encouraging self-censorship, particularly on social media platforms that suspend or disable accounts subjected to takedown orders.

Kamra has also argued that the impugned framework violates his right to practice his profession under Article 19(1)(g), stating that his work as a comedian and commentator depends on digital platforms for dissemination.

The petition states that the cause of action arose in October 2024, when the Sahyog Portal became operational and began issuing blocking directions, and continued after the 2025 amendment to the IT Rules came into force. Kamra has sought interim reliefs and orders restraining authorities from issuing or enforcing takedown orders through the Sahyog Portal pending final adjudication.

The matter was mentioned before the court today and will be heard on March 16.

Kamra's latest challenge comes against the backdrop of his earlier petition before the Bombay High Court questioning the 2023 amendments to the IT Rules that empowered the Union government to establish a fact-checking unit to flag online content relating to the "business of the Central Government" as fake or misleading. Kamra had argued that the provision was vague, overbroad and conferred excessive power on the executive, leading to a chilling effect on free speech.

That challenge resulted in a split verdict from a division bench of the Bombay High Court, following which the matter was referred to a third judge. The third judge eventually struck down the fact-checking provision as unconstitutional, holding that it violated Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. The court found that the amendment failed to provide adequate procedural safeguards and vested unilateral power in the executive to determine the legality of online speech.

The earlier ruling is now being relied upon by Kamra to argue that the Sahyog Portal and the 2025 amendment similarly create an impermissible, parallel mechanism for content blocking outside the framework upheld by the Supreme Court under Section 69A of the IT Act.