Petitions by comedian Kunal Kamra, senior advocate challenge amended IT rule and Sahyog portal’s legality

MUMBAI: Two petitions, one by stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, have challenged the constitutional validity of a recently amended rule under the Information Technology Act and the legality of the cyber portal ‘Sahyog’ established by the Centre. Mumbai-based senior advocate Haresh Jagtiani and Kamra filed separate petitions challenging the constitutionality of 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, on the grounds that they empower a “unilateral takedown” of online content. The petitions were mentioned by senior counsel Navroz Seervai for Jagtiani and counsel Arti Raghavan for Kamra on Friday before a division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Abhay Mantri, which posted the matter for circulation on March 16.

The petitions, filed through advocate Meenaz Kakalia, contended that the amendments had a much wider impact than even the “chilling effect” of the Fact Check Unit (FCU) provision, which was successfully challenged earlier before the high court by Kamra and others, on the government’s powers to ensure unilateral takedown of information. The petitions contended that “Rule 3(1)(d) and the Sahyog Portal are wholly illegal and ultra vires the IT Act, and in contravention of the Supreme Court’s 2015 judgment in Shreya Singhal v.

Union of India” against vague and over-broad provisions in law. They further contended that “Rule 3(1)(d) and the Sahyog Portal create a takedown regime parallel to that of Section 69A of the IT Act and the Blocking Rules without the legally mandated safeguards, and is therefore manifestly arbitrary”. The rule, the petitions said, amounted to a flagrant violation of Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g)—the freedoms of speech and trade—and did not fall within the exceptions permitted under the Constitution. Kamra’s petition stated that the portal did away with issuing any notice to the originator of the content, affording a hearing to the affected party, or passing a reasoned order before blocking content on the internet. The Supreme Court had held a hearing to be a necessary safeguard to ensure the constitutionality of such provisions, it said. “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 Bombay High Court,” the petition added. The petitions sought interim relief and directions to the government to suspend the operation of the Sahyog Portal, and to restrain any officer of the Central or state governments from directing the blocking or takedown of any information without following the procedure mandated under Section 69A of the IT Act and the Blocking Rules. The petitioners also sought a declaration from the high court that “orders for blocking information or disabling access to information on the internet 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 (Blocking Rules).”