MUMBAI: Comedian and political satirist Kunal Kamra has challenged the legality and constitutionality of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023 and the “Sahyog” portal, which was set up under the amended rules.
The portal, according to the central government, was developed to automate the process of sending notices to intermediaries “to facilitate the removal or disabling of access to any information, data or communication link being used to commit unlawful acts”.
In his petition filed before the Bombay High Court through advocate Meenaz Kaklia, the 37-year-old comedian contended that Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Amendment Rules, which came into force in October 2025, enables authorities to unilaterally block or takedown online content without complying with the mandatory requirements laid down under the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, including issuance of notice to the originator, affording a hearing to the affected party and passing a reasoned, speaking order.
“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 over information flow on the internet…It strikes at the heart of democracy, and a citizen’s right to information,” Kamra said in his petition.
Rule 3(1)(d) in its present form was introduced in October 2025, around a month after the Bombay High Court on September 26, 2024, struck down the 2023 amendment to Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the IT Rules which provided for the creation of a “”Fact Check Unit” to identify fake, false or misleading information online relating to the business of the central government and effect its takedown through intermediaries.
Senior advocate Haresh Jagtiani has also filed a similar petition in the high court. Both petitions were listed for urgent hearing on Friday and the next hearing is scheduled on March 16.
Kamra, in his petition, said that while the Supreme Court had held the mandatory requirements under the IT Act as necessary safeguards that ensured the constitutionality of related provisions, rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Amendment Rules and the Sahyog Portal were rendered ultra vires the IT Act in absence of safeguards.
Through the Sahyog portal, central and state government officials had been unlawfully conferred with the power to peremptorily issue takedown or blocking orders, without following the procedure mandated under the IT Act, Kamra said in his petition.
The petition further contended that rule 3(1)(d) and Sahyog portal were also ex-facie unconstitutional, as they enabled blocking or takedown of information from internet platforms on wholly vague grounds – such as the information being used for unlawful activities or in violation of any acts/ law administered by the authorities.
“Such powers amount to an unconstitutional and unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech, that go beyond the constitutionally permissible grounds that have been exhaustively enumerated under Article 19(2) of the Constitution,” the petition said.