Source Bar and Bench
MUMBAI – In a significant legal challenge to India’s digital regulation landscape, satirist Kunal Kamra and Senior Advocate Haresh Jagtiani have approached the Bombay High Court to strike down the Central Government’s Sahyog Portal. The petitioners argue that the portal, along with recent amendments to the Information Technology (IT) Rules, creates a “parallel and lawless” system for censoring online content.
The petitions, filed on February 4, 2026, specifically target Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules—as amended in October 2025—which provides the legal framework for the Sahyog Portal. The matter was mentioned before a bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Abhay Mantri, which has scheduled the next hearing for March 16, 2026.
The Core of the Contention
The petitioners allege that the Sahyog Portal bypasses the established legal safeguards of the IT Act. Key arguments include:
Lack of Due Process: Unlike the standard procedure under Section 69A of the IT Act, the Sahyog mechanism allegedly allows the government to block content without issuing notice to the creator or providing a hearing.
Vague Grounds for Takedowns: The plea claims that the portal enables thousands of government officials at both Central and State levels to issue “peremptory” blocking orders based on vague definitions of “unlawful” content.
Constitutional Violations: The challenge asserts that these rules violate fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech) and Article 14 (Right to Equality), calling the framework “manifestly arbitrary.”
“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 unchecked power,” Kamra’s petition stated.
Comparison with Existing Law
The legal challenge leans heavily on the landmark 2015 Supreme Court judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, which struck down Section 66A of the IT Act for being overbroad and vague. The petitioners argue that the Sahyog Portal is a “backdoor” attempt to reintroduce similar powers by circumventing the rigorous “Blocking Rules” of 2009.
Feature Section 69A (Standard) Sahyog Portal (Challenged)
Notice to Creator Required (usually) Not required
Reasoned Order Mandatory Often absent
Scope Specific national security/public order grounds Broad/vague “unlawful” grounds
Authority Designated Central officials Thousands of Central & State officials
Government’s Stance
While the government has yet to file a formal response in this specific case, it has previously defended the Sahyog Portal as a coordination tool designed to “automate and expedite” the removal of illegal content—such as CSAM (Child Sexual Abuse Material) or financial fraud—by acting as a bridge between law enforcement and social media giants like Meta and X.
As the court prepares to hear the matter in March, the outcome could set a vital precedent for how the Indian government balances national security and digital policing with the fundamental right to free expression.
