Kunal Kamra Moves Bombay High Court Challenging 'Sahyog Portal' & 2025 Amendment To IT Rules Allowing Blocking Of Social Media Content

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.

The challenge is directed against 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 has 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.

It has been 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.

It has been 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]. 

It is 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 states 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 is also 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.

Finally, it is argued that the power to issue Information Blocking Orders cannot be delegated to State Governments/Departments as per List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.

Separately, Senior Advocate Haresh Jagtiani has also filed an independent writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the Sahyog Portal and the amended Rule 3(1)(d), raising similar constitutional concerns.

The matter was mentioned today, and the bench has kept it for further consideration on 16th March.

The first petition has been filed on behalf of Mr. Haresh Jagtiani, a senior advocate of the Bombay High Court. Mr. Navroz Seervai is appearing for Mr. Jagtiani.

The second petition has been filed on behalf of Kunal Kamra. Adv Arti Raghavan appearing for Kamra. Advocate Meenaz Kakalia is on record in both matters.

Case details: Kunal Kamra v. Union of India [WP (L) No. 4061 of 2026] and Haresh Jagtiani v. Union of India [WP (L) No. 4044 of 2025]