Click the Play button to listen to article

The Bombay High Court on Friday (September 11) adjourned sine die the petitions filed by Comedian Kunal Kamra and Senior Advocate Haresh Jagtiani 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.

A division bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna noted that recently the Supreme Court had stayed the proceedings pending before the Bombay and Karnataka High Courts, over the very issue and thus, adjourned the matter sine die. 

Kamra had challenged certain provisions which enable the blocking of content posted on social media intermediaries. Earlier, the Karnataka High Court, in a challenge by 'X Corp', had held that the Sahyog portal is not an instrument for censorship, but ensures cooperation between social media intermediaries and government agencies.

Kamra contended that the impugned mechanism creates a parallel content-blocking framework that circumvents the procedural safeguards mandated under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. He argued that the Sahyog Portal permits blocking of online content without prior notice to the user, thereby violating principles of natural justice and free speech guarantees.

Further Kamra 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 judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India [2015 (5) SCC 1]. He further submitted that both Rule 3(1)(d) and the Sahyog Portal cannot draw sustenance from Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, as Section 79 of the IT Act is an Exemption Provision.

The plea stated 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. It has also been argued that Rule 3(1)(d) and the Sahyog Portal constitute a flagrant violation of Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g), and do not fall within the exceptions outlined in Article 19(2) and 19(6) of the Constitution.

Case details: Kunal Kamra vs Union of India [WP (L) No. 4061 of 2026] 

Tags: