Kunal Kamra Moves Bombay HC Challenging Sahyog Portal, 2025 IT Rules Amendment Against Blocking of Social Media Content

Satirist and political commentator Kunal Kamra has approached the Bombay High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the 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, contending that the framework enables blocking of online content through a parallel mechanism that bypasses statutory safeguards under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Kamra has argued that the impugned measures allow executive authorities to block or disable access to content posted on social media platforms without following the procedure prescribed under Section 69A of the IT Act, including prior notice, opportunity of hearing, and issuance of reasoned orders, thereby violating constitutional guarantees of free speech and due process.

A writ petition filed before the Bombay High Court assails both the operationalisation of the Sahyog Portal and the amended Rule 3(1)(d), on the ground that together they create an extra-statutory content-blocking regime. Kamra has sought judicial scrutiny of the amendment, contending that it is ultra vires the IT Act and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

According to the petition, Rule 3(1)(d), as amended in 2025, obligates intermediaries to take down or disable access to content flagged through the Sahyog Portal, without the checks and balances mandated under Section 69A. Kamra contends that while Section 69A provides a narrowly tailored mechanism for blocking content in the interests of sovereignty, security, and public order, it is accompanied by procedural safeguards, including review committees and confidentiality requirements, which are absent under the impugned framework.

The plea asserts that the Sahyog Portal functions as a centralised platform through which various government departments can issue takedown directions directly to intermediaries. Kamra argues that this effectively shifts the decision-making power from a statutorily defined process to an executive-controlled digital interface, enabling censorship without accountability or transparency.

A key ground of challenge raised in the petition is that the amended rule enables content blocking without notice to the user whose content is affected, thereby depriving individuals of the opportunity to contest or even understand the basis of the restriction imposed on their speech.

Kamra submits that such a mechanism is antithetical to settled constitutional jurisprudence, which requires that restrictions on speech be reasonable, proportionate, and accompanied by procedural safeguards.

The petition further contends that the rule exceeds the delegated powers under Section 79 of the IT Act, which governs intermediary liability. According to Kamra, Section 79 does not authorise the creation of a substantive content-blocking regime and cannot be used as a backdoor to bypass the more stringent requirements of Section 69A.

Kamra has also flagged the chilling effect the Sahyog Portal and amended rule could have on online speech, particularly satire, political commentary, and criticism of the government. He argues that the fear of sudden takedowns without notice or remedy would deter users from exercising their right to free expression on digital platforms.

The petition names the Union of India and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology as respondents and seeks a declaration that the Sahyog Portal and the amended Rule 3(1)(d) are unconstitutional. Kamra has also sought interim protection against coercive action under the impugned framework pending adjudication of the challenge.

The plea is part of a broader set of legal challenges questioning the expanding regulatory control over online speech in India. In recent years, courts have been called upon to examine amendments to the IT Rules on grounds of over-breadth, lack of procedural safeguards, and excessive delegation of power to the executive.

Kamra’s challenge specifically emphasises that while the State may regulate online content in limited circumstances, such regulation must conform to the constitutional requirement of legality, necessity, and proportionality.

The petition asserts that by allowing content blocking through an opaque portal-based system, the amended rules invert this constitutional scheme.

The matter is expected to be listed before the Court in the coming weeks.