Explained: Why Kunal Kamra approached Bombay HC against Sahyog Portal, amended IT Rules

On Friday, stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra and senior advocate Haresh Jagtiani moved the Bombay High Court challenging the contentious Sahyog Portal — which has rapidly become a central tool in India’s expanding online censorship framework. Kamra and Jagtiani also challenged an amendment to the Information Technology (IT) Rules that requires social media or online intermediaries to remove such content within 36 hours. A High Court Division Bench will hear the matter on March 16. We explain how the Sahyog website works, what the amended rules say, and the objections that have been raised against both. ## What is the Sahyog Portal The Sahyog Portal, developed by the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology in collaboration with the Ministry of Home Affairs, was launched in 2024 to expedite the blocking of “objectionable content” online under the IT Act, 2000. The website was to bring all authorised agencies and intermediaries onto a single platform, enabling and automating immediate action against unlawful online content. According to RTI data obtained by The Indian Express, more than 2,300 blocking orders were sent to 19 online platforms, including WhatsApp, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram, between October 2024 and October 2025 through the portal. The data also reveals that more than 118 intermediaries have been onboarded to Sahyog, which suggests an expanding universe of platforms required to comply with state-issued takedown demands. The blocking orders were sent by Central, state and Union Territory (UT) agencies. This is not the first time the Sahyog Portal has been challenged in court. Social media platform X, formerly Twitter, had earlier approached the Karnataka High Court against the portal. A single-judge bench of Karnataka HC had upheld its validity in September, 2025. X’s appeal is pending before a division (two-judge) bench there. The amended IT Rule in question In October 2025, the Union government notified an amendment to Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules. This required intermediaries to remove or disable access within 36 hours to information used for unlawful acts upon “actual knowledge”. “Actual knowledge” would arise from court orders or written notices from authorised senior officers that specify the legal basis, statutory provision, the nature of the unlawful act and an exact online location (URL/identifier) of the content. The amended rule came into effect on November 15, 2025. According to the government, it introduced additional safeguards to ensure intermediaries remove unlawful content in “a transparent, proportionate and accountable manner”. Challenges and objections Petitioners Kamra and Jagtiani alleged that the Sahyog Portal “unlawfully conferred” powers to thousands of Central and state officers to “peremptorily issue takedown/ blocking orders, without following the procedure mandated under the IT Act”. The amended IT Rule, the petitioners contend, allows “unilateral takedown or blocking” of internet information through orders from designated officers, bypassing procedures to issue notices or provide hearings for content originators. These provisions, as per the petitioners, “create a takedown regime parallel to Section 69A (Power to block information from public access) of the IT Act and the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (Blocking Rules)” without any safeguards. The petitioners said that impugned decisions are in violation of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) (to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business) and Article 14 (equality before law). The petitioners argued that such conferring of powers to government officers results in “an unconstitutional and unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech”, going beyond the restrictions provided under the Constitution. “Rule 3(1)(d) and the Sahyog Portal render all information on the internet vulnerable to arbitrary takedowns, provide for no remedy against such action, and effectively give thousands of government officers at the Central and State level unchecked power over information flow on the internet. It strikes at the heart of democracy, and a citizen’s right to information,” the pleas say. What the petitioners have sought The petitioners sought a declaration from the Bombay High Court that the amended Rule 3(1)(d) does not confer authority to issue blocking orders. The separate petitions by Kamra and Jagtiani also sought that the court should declare that the Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act does not confer authority to issue information blocking orders. They asked the court to issue a direction to “forthwith disable and dismantle the Sahyog Portal”. Pending final disposal, the pleas seek interim suspension of the portal. Pending the pleas, the petitioners seek interim reliefs to restrain authorities from enforcing amended Rule 3 (1) (d) and a direction that any government officer cannot issue information blocking or taking down orders without procedure required under Section 69A of IT Act. Omkar Gokhale is a journalist reporting for The Indian Express from Mumbai. His work demonstrates exceptionally strong Expertise and Authority in legal and judicial reporting, making him a highly Trustworthy source for developments concerning the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in relation to Maharashtra and its key institutions. Expertise & Authority Affiliation: Reports for The Indian Express, a national newspaper known for its rigorous journalistic standards, lending significant Trustworthiness to his legal coverage. Core Authority & Specialization: Omkar Gokhale's work is almost exclusively dedicated to the complex field of legal affairs and jurisprudence, specializing in: Bombay High Court Coverage: He provides detailed, real-time reports on the orders, observations, and decisions of the Bombay High Court's principal and regional benches. Key subjects include: Fundamental Rights & Environment: Cases on air pollution, the right to life of residents affected by dumping sites, and judicial intervention on critical infrastructure (e.g., Ghodbunder Road potholes). Civil & Criminal Law: Reporting on significant bail orders (e.g., Elgaar Parishad case), compensation for rail-related deaths, and disputes involving high-profile individuals (e.g., Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty). Constitutional and Supreme Court Matters: Reports and analysis on key legal principles and Supreme Court warnings concerning Maharashtra, such as those related to local body elections, reservations, and the creamy layer verdict. Governance and Institution Oversight: Covers court rulings impacting public bodies like the BMC (regularisation of illegal structures) and the State Election Commission (postponement of polls), showcasing a focus on judicial accountability. Legal Interpretation: Reports on public speeches and observations by prominent judicial figures (e.g., former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai) on topics like free speech, gender equality, and institutional challenges. Omkar Gokhale's consistent, focused reporting on the judiciary establishes him as a definitive and authoritative voice for legal developments originating from Mumbai and impacting the entire state of Maharashtra. ... Read More