Kunal Kamra has moved the Bombay High Court against the Sahyog Portal and amended IT Rules, calling them an assault on free speech that facilitates arbitrary content blocking.
The petition argues the portal enables takedown orders without procedural safeguards like prior notice or an opportunity to be heard, conflicting with Section 69A of the IT Act.
Kamra’s plea asserts that the framework violates fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g), and 14 of the Constitution and seeks judicial scrutiny and interim relief ahead of the March 16 hearing
Kunal Kamra Moves Bombay High Court Against Sahyog Portal, Calls It “Assault On Free Speech”
Stand-up comedian and free-speech advocate Kunal Kamra challenges the legality of the government’s online content regulation framework before the Bombay High Court.
Summary
Stand-up comedian and satirist Kunal Kamra has filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the constitutional validity of the Centre’s Sahyog Portal and the recent amendment to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. Kamra has described the portal as an “unconstitutional and unreasonable assault on freedom of speech”, arguing that it enables arbitrary takedowns of online content without due legal process.
According to the petition, the Sahyog Portal, which was introduced to streamline communication between government agencies and social media intermediaries for blocking unlawful content, permits government officials sweeping powers to issue takedown or blocking orders without the procedural safeguards mandated under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Kamra contends that this framework bypasses statutory due process, including notice and hearing requirements, and grants unchecked authority to officials at both the Central and State levels.
The plea also challenges the amended Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, asserting that it, when read with the Sahyog Portal mechanism, exceeds the government’s powers under the IT Act and violates fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, particularly the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), as well as rights relating to practice of profession and equality before law. The matter is slated for further hearing on March 16.
Published At: