Current Affairs Topics Archive
International Relations Economics Polity & Governance Environment & Ecology Science & Technology Internal Security Geography Social Issues Art & Culture Modern History

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

February 08, 2026 6 min read Polity & Governance Science & Technology GS Paper II (Fundamental Rights Judiciary) GS Paper III (IT & Cyber Policy)
On This Page ▼

What Happened

  • Stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra and senior advocate Haresh Jagtiani filed separate writ petitions in the Bombay High Court challenging the constitutionality of the Sahyog Portal and the 2025 amendment to Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
  • The petition alleges the Sahyog Portal creates a "parallel content-blocking regime" that bypasses the procedural safeguards mandated under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000.
  • The petitioners argue that the mechanism allows thousands of central and state government officers to unilaterally direct content takedowns without prior notice to the user or creator, without a hearing, and without any remedy against the decision.
  • The petition invokes Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and Article 19(1)(g) (freedom of profession), contending the mechanism violates Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) safeguards.
  • A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court is scheduled to hear the petition on 16 March 2026.

Static Topic Bridges

The IT Act provides two separate mechanisms involving content restrictions online. Section 69A empowers the Central Government to issue blocking orders for specified grounds (sovereignty, security, public order, etc.) through a formal process. Section 79, by contrast, is an exemption provision that grants intermediaries safe harbour from liability for third-party content, provided they observe due diligence. Section 79(3)(b) creates an exception to this immunity if intermediaries fail to act on "actual knowledge" of unlawful content.

  • Section 69A: Only the Central Government (not state governments) can issue blocking orders; requires a reasoned written order; the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 mandate a hearing (Rule 8) and a review committee (Rule 14) to check executive overreach.
  • Section 79(3)(b): Does not itself grant any blocking power; it merely strips intermediary immunity if they ignore a court order or government notification about unlawful content.
  • The core legal question is whether the Sahyog Portal operates under Section 69A's safeguarded process or improperly leverages Section 79(3)(b) to achieve content blocking without those safeguards.
  • The petition argues that content-blocking power cannot be delegated to state governments or departments, as "Posts and Telegraphs; Telephones, Wireless, Broadcasting" falls under Entry 31, List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule.

Connection to this news: The challenge centres on whether the government can bypass Section 69A's constitutionally validated safeguards by routing takedown requests through Section 79(3)(b) via the Sahyog Portal, effectively creating a parallel blocking regime without judicial or quasi-judicial oversight.

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015)

In this landmark case, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 as unconstitutional for being vague and overbroad in violation of Article 19(1)(a). The Court simultaneously upheld Section 69A, specifically because it contained adequate procedural safeguards -- a narrowly drawn provision with defined grounds, a reasoned order requirement, a hearing process, and a review committee.

  • Section 66A (struck down): Criminalised sending "grossly offensive" or "menacing" information online; terms were vague, overbroad, and failed the test of reasonable restriction under Article 19(2).
  • Section 69A (upheld): Blocking power validated because it is narrowly drawn with safeguards -- reasoned order, pre-decisional hearing (except in emergencies), and review by an inter-departmental committee.
  • Section 79(3)(b) (read down): The Court held intermediaries are obligated to remove content only upon receiving a court order or government notification through due process -- not upon informal or arbitrary takedown notices.
  • Citation: (2015) 5 SCC 1; decided on 24 March 2015 by Justices J. Chelameswar and R.F. Nariman.

Connection to this news: The petition argues that the Sahyog Portal and Rule 3(1)(d) amendment contravene the Shreya Singhal safeguards by enabling content removal through administrative notices without the hearing, reasoned order, and review committee processes that the Supreme Court held were essential for Section 69A's constitutional validity.

Sahyog Portal and the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C)

The Sahyog Portal was launched on 11 December 2024 by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C), which operates under the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). Originally designed to coordinate between government agencies and intermediaries on cybercrime matters, the portal was subsequently repurposed for processing content takedown and blocking orders.

  • I4C was established in 2018 under the MHA to provide a framework for law enforcement agencies to deal with cybercrimes in a coordinated manner.
  • The Sahyog Portal automates the pipeline of takedown requests from government agencies to social media intermediaries.
  • The 2025 amendment to Rule 3(1)(d) introduced requirements that only officers of Joint Secretary rank or equivalent (or a specially authorised DIG-level police officer) can issue takedown directions; the amendment came into effect on 15 November 2025.
  • The Karnataka High Court had earlier heard a challenge by X Corp (formerly Twitter) against the Sahyog Portal's blocking mechanism, where X relied on Shreya Singhal safeguards.

Connection to this news: The Bombay HC challenge questions whether the Sahyog Portal's administrative mechanism -- even with the 2025 amendment's seniority requirements -- provides constitutionally adequate safeguards comparable to the Section 69A process that the Supreme Court specifically validated in Shreya Singhal.

Freedom of Speech and Reasonable Restrictions Under Article 19

Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression to all citizens. This right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) on eight specified grounds: sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offence.

  • Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech and expression; extends to online speech as held in Shreya Singhal.
  • Article 19(1)(g): Freedom to practise any profession or carry on any occupation, trade, or business; subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6).
  • Article 19(2): Restrictions must satisfy a two-part test -- the restriction must fall within one of the eight enumerated grounds, and it must be "reasonable" (proportionate, not excessive).
  • The doctrine of proportionality (K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017) requires that any restriction on fundamental rights must be necessary, proportionate, and the least restrictive means available.
  • The "chilling effect" doctrine: Vague or overbroad content regulation can deter legitimate speech even before enforcement, which itself constitutes a constitutional infirmity.

Connection to this news: The petitioners contend that the ability of government officers to issue content takedowns without notice, hearing, or remedy creates a chilling effect on online speech, failing both the reasonable restriction test under Article 19(2) and the proportionality standard.

Key Facts & Data

  • Sahyog Portal launched: 11 December 2024, by I4C under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
  • IT Rules 2021 originally notified: 25 February 2021; amended on 28 October 2022, 6 April 2023, and in 2025.
  • 2025 amendment to Rule 3(1)(d) effective from: 15 November 2025; requires Joint Secretary rank or equivalent for takedown directions.
  • Section 69A: Central Government's power to block content; validated in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1.
  • Section 66A: Struck down as unconstitutional in the same judgment (24 March 2015).
  • Section 79(3)(b): Read down to require court orders or due-process government notifications for intermediary compliance.
  • Bombay HC hearing date: 16 March 2026.
  • Constitutional provisions invoked: Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(1)(g), Article 19(2), Article 19(6).
  • Content-blocking falls under Entry 31, List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule -- cannot be delegated to state governments.