The Bombay High Court on Thursday directed the Union government to file an affidavit by July 29 in response to a petition filed by stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra. The 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. Mr. Kamra has contended that the provisions enable content takedowns without safeguards.
A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad scheduled the matter for hearing on August 14. The court granted Mr. Kamra time till August 6 to file his rejoinder to the government’s reply.
Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai, appearing for Mr. Kamra, submitted that the Union government had not filed its affidavit despite being granted opportunities. He said the matter pertained to Article 19(1)(a) and concerned freedom of speech and expression.
Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, representing the Centre, requested time to place the government’s response on record. Mr. Seervai opposed the request and sought an early hearing.
The Bench directed the Centre to file its affidavit by July 29 and granted Mr. Kamra time till August 6 for his rejoinder. Mr. Seervai urged the court to record that the extension would be the government’s “last chance” to file its response. Justice Ghuge did not accept this request.
Mr. Kamra moved the High Court earlier this year challenging the Sahyog Portal and the 2025 amendment to Rule 3(1)(d). The petition argues that the mechanism creates a parallel content-blocking framework that circumvents safeguards under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The plea contends that the Sahyog Portal permits content blocking without prior notice to users, violating natural justice principles and the free speech guarantee under Article 19(1)(a). It further states that Rule 3(1)(d) and the Sahyog Portal are ultra vires the IT Act and contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015).
According to the petition, Rule 3(1)(d) and the Sahyog Portal cannot derive legitimacy from Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, as Section 79 provides exemptions to intermediaries and does not authorise an independent takedown regime. The plea also contends that the provisions create a framework parallel to Section 69A and the Blocking Rules without incorporating safeguards, rendering them manifestly arbitrary and violative of Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g).
Mr. Kamra has also challenged the delegation of powers to State governments and departments to issue information-blocking directions, contending that such powers fall within the Union’s exclusive legislative domain under List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.
The Karnataka High Court, while deciding a challenge by X Corp, had held that the Sahyog Portal is not an instrument of censorship but ensures cooperation between intermediaries and government agencies.
Published - July 16, 2026 02:46 pm IST