Kunal Kamra Vs Centre: Bombay HC Orders Govt To Respond On Comedian's Sahyog Portal Challenge

Published 16 July 2026 · india

Kunal Kamra Vs Centre: Bombay HC Orders Govt To Respond On Comedian's Sahyog Portal Challenge Written By, Last Updated: July 16, 2026, 19:45 IST The

Kunal Kamra Vs Centre: Bombay HC Orders Govt To Respond On Comedian's Sahyog Portal Challenge Written By, Last Updated: July 16, 2026, 19:45 IST The plea argues that the Sahyog Portal and the 36-hour takedown mandate under the amended IT rules establish a parallel content-blocking framework Kamra’s petition also raises a crucial federal question, challenging the Centre's delegation of content-blocking powers to individual state governments and departments. File image/X The Bombay High Court has directed the central government to file its reply by July 29 in a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Union’s Sahyog Portal. Filed by stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, the plea also targets the 2025 amendment to Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (IT) Rules, 2021, which he argues enables the arbitrary takedown of online content without adequate safeguards. A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad scheduled the next hearing for 14 August 2026, granting Kamra until August 6 to file his rejoinder.

The order came after Kamra’s counsel, Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai, expressed frustration that the Union had failed to submit its response despite the petition being filed in February. Why the Portal is Under Fire Developed by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the Sahyog Portal was designed to help authorities coordinate with online intermediaries to expedite the blocking of objectionable content. However, Kamra’s petition contends that the portal bypasses critical legal protections. No Prior Notice: The petition argues the system allows the unilateral removal of content without notifying the creator. No Right to be Heard: Affected individuals are allegedly denied a fair opportunity to present their case before their content is blocked. Absence of Reasoned Orders: The portal operates without the requirement of passing a formal, written order explaining the takedown. Bypassing Constitutional Safeguards The plea argues that the Sahyog Portal and the 36-hour takedown mandate under the amended IT rules establish a parallel content-blocking framework.

According to Kamra, this mechanism deliberately circumvents the statutory safety checks established under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000. Furthermore, the petition states that this process violates the fundamental right to free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It argues that the rules run contrary to the landmark Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) judgment, which established strict procedural limits on the state’s power to censor digital content. A Question of Jurisdiction Kamra’s petition also raises a crucial federal question, challenging the Centre’s delegation of content-blocking powers to individual state governments and departments. The plea asserts that regulating online communication falls strictly within the Union’s exclusive legislative domain, making any state-level delegation constitutionally invalid. News18 Newsletter Handpicked stories, in your inbox A newsletter with the best of our journalism submit Key Questions Answered What are the key arguments against the Sahyog Portal? Arguments against the Sahyog Portal include that it bypasses legal protections by operating without requiring a formal, written order for takedowns.