Bombay HC Seeks Union Govt’s Reply on Kunal Kamra’s Challenge to Sahyog Portal, IT Rules

Moneylife Digital Team 16 July 2026

Economy & Nation

The Bombay High Court on Thursday directed the Union government to file its response in a petition filed by stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra challenging the constitutional validity of the government's Sahyog Portal and amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

A division bench of acting chief justice Ravindra Ghuge and justice Gautam Ankhad asked the government to submit its affidavit by 19 July 2026. The bench also granted Mr Kamra time until 6th August to file his rejoinder and scheduled the next hearing for 14 August 2026 at 3pm.

The matter was mentioned before the court by senior counsel Navroz Seervai, appearing for Mr Kamra, who submitted that despite several opportunities, the Union government had not yet filed its affidavit in response to the constitutional challenge.

During the hearing, Mr Seervai argued that the case raises important questions relating to the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and urged the court to ensure an early adjudication.

Appearing for the government, additional solicitor general (ASG) Anil Singh sought additional time to place the government's response on record. While Mr Seervai opposed the request and pressed for an expedited schedule, the bench granted the government time until 29 July 2026 to file its affidavit. The Court, however, declined the petitioner's request to record that the extension would be the government's final opportunity to respond.

Mr Kamra's petition challenges 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.

According to the petition, the impugned provisions facilitate the removal of online content through a mechanism that operates outside the statutory safeguards prescribed under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The plea contends that the portal effectively establishes a parallel framework for blocking online content without providing affected users prior notice or an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating principles of natural justice and the constitutional guarantee of free speech.

Mr Kamra has further argued that the amended Rule 3(1)(d), which requires intermediaries to remove specified content within 36 hours, and the Sahyog Portal are beyond the powers conferred under the Information Technology Act.

The petition also relies on the Supreme Court's 2015 judgment in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, contending that the statutory protections governing online content blocking cannot be bypassed through executive mechanisms.

It further argues that Section 79 of the Information Technology Act merely grants conditional safe-harbour protection to intermediaries and does not authorise the creation of an independent content-takedown regime.

Mr Kamra has also questioned the delegation of powers to state governments and their departments to issue content-blocking directions, arguing that such powers fall within the Union's exclusive legislative domain under the Constitution.

The challenge comes against the backdrop of an earlier ruling by the Karnataka High Court in proceedings initiated by X Corp, where the court observed that the Sahyog Portal was intended to facilitate coordination between government agencies and online intermediaries rather than function as a censorship mechanism.

Comments