Petitions by Kamra and senior advocate Harish Jagtiani argue that the October 2025 amendment and the portal allow arbitrary removal of online content without hearing creators
MUMBAI – Well-known stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra has approached the Bombay High Court, challenging the October 2025 amendment to the Information Technology Act and the Centre’s ‘Sahyog Portal’, calling them illegal, unconstitutional, and a direct attack on free speech.
Kamra’s petition filed on Friday, supported by concerns raised by a senior advocate, argues that the amendment and the portal together place all online content at the mercy of government officers, allowing one-sided and unchecked action without giving content creators any chance to present their side.
The case raises serious questions about freedom of expression, due process, and the future of independent voices on the internet, particularly those that question authority, satire those in power, or highlight issues affecting marginalised communities, especially Muslims.
The Sahyog Portal was introduced by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs in 2024. According to the government, the portal was created to speed up the removal of “objectionable” content from social media platforms and the wider internet in the name of cyber security.
Through this portal, central and state government officials can send notices to social media companies and website operators, directing them to remove specific content within a fixed time.
Petitioners argue that while the stated aim is efficiency, the real effect is concentration of power in the hands of officials, with no clear safeguards.
In his petition, Kunal Kamra has stated that the Sahyog Portal gives government officers sweeping authority to act against online content without any supervision or accountability.
He has argued that officers can issue takedown notices against videos, posts, or articles without hearing the creator or author, and without providing reasons that can be challenged.
According to the petition, “The portal allows government officers to act as judge, jury, and executioner, without any obligation to hear the affected person or provide a fair process.”
Kamra has maintained that such powers violate fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, including the right to freedom of speech and expression.
“These powers strike at the heart of constitutional protections,’ the petition states, adding that the amendment is ‘unnecessary, excessive, and unconstitutional”.
One of the central concerns raised in the petition is that once content is removed under the Sahyog Portal mechanism, there is no effective way to challenge that decision.
The petition points out that “there is no clear remedy provided to the content creator whose work is taken down”.
This, Kamra argues, creates a climate of fear and self-censorship, where creators may avoid speaking on sensitive issues, including minority rights, governance failures, or social injustice.
Legal observers note that such fear affects journalists, comedians, writers, and activists alike, many of whom already face pressure for expressing dissenting views.
Senior advocate Harish Jagtiani has also filed a separate petition in the Bombay High Court, challenging the same amendment and the Sahyog Portal.
Jagtiani has questioned the changes made in October 2025 to Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Amendment Rules, 2023).
He has objected to the manner in which government officers have been granted unilateral power to order the removal of online content.
“Granting such unchecked authority to officials goes against basic principles of fairness and natural justice,” Jagtiani has argued in his plea.
Under the amended Rule 3(1)(d), social media platforms and internet service providers are now legally bound to remove content within a specified time if they receive a court order or a direction from the government or an authorised officer under the amended law.
Failure to comply can expose platforms to legal consequences.
Critics argue that this puts companies under pressure to comply quickly, often without questioning the legality or fairness of the order.
A similar provision already exists under Section 69A of the IT Act, which allows the central government to block websites in the interest of national security or public order.
However, petitioners argue that the Sahyog Portal expands this power massively by allowing thousands of officials at both the central and state levels to issue such directions.
A key issue raised by both petitioners is the absence of any requirement to hear the affected party.
Kamra’s petition states that content creators are not informed in advance, are not given reasons, and are not allowed to defend their work before it is taken down.
“The author or creator is denied the opportunity to be heard,” the petition notes, calling this a clear violation of natural justice.
This lack of procedure, petitioners argue, makes the system open to misuse, personal bias, and political pressure.
As a comedian known for political satire, Kamra has often faced criticism and backlash for his work. Supporters say his petition is not just about his own rights, but about protecting the space for humour, criticism, and dissent.
“Satire is meant to question power,” said a Mumbai-based media analyst. “If officials can remove content without explanation, satire becomes the first casualty.”
Observers also point out that such laws often hit minority voices harder, including Muslim journalists and activists, whose content is more likely to be labelled ‘objectionable’ or ‘sensitive’.
Civil rights groups have expressed concern that vague and broad powers of takedown are frequently used against content highlighting discrimination, communal violence, or state excesses.
“Indian Muslims already struggle to get fair representation in mainstream discourse,” said a rights activist. “If online platforms are also silenced through such tools, it closes one of the few spaces left.”
Though Kamra’s petition does not single out any community, its implications are far-reaching, especially for those who rely on digital platforms to tell their stories.
According to the petition, the government has justified the Sahyog Portal by stating that it helps speed up compliance with takedown orders related to unlawful content.
The government claims that the portal improves coordination between law enforcement agencies and online platforms.
However, petitioners argue that speed cannot come at the cost of constitutional rights.
“Efficiency cannot replace fairness,” Kamra’s petition states.
One of the most serious objections raised is the scale of authority given under the portal.
The petition notes that thousands of officers from central and state governments are empowered to issue takedown notices.
“There is no oversight, no review mechanism, and no independent check,” the plea argues.
Legal experts say that such wide powers increase the risk of inconsistent decisions and misuse.
While Section 69A already allows website blocking, it requires certain procedural safeguards and is limited to the central government.
Petitioners argue that the Sahyog Portal effectively bypasses these limits by creating a parallel system with fewer protections.
“What was earlier an exception has now become the rule,” said a constitutional lawyer familiar with the case.
Journalists have also raised an alarm, saying that such laws discourage investigative reporting.
A senior digital editor said, “If a report can be taken down by an officer without explanation, editors will think twice before publishing.”
For independent and minority-run news platforms, the risk is even higher, as they often lack legal resources to fight takedown orders.
The Bombay High Court is expected to examine whether the amendment and the Sahyog Portal violate constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 19.
The court will also consider whether the absence of a hearing and appeal mechanism makes the law arbitrary.
Legal observers say the case could set an important precedent for digital rights in India.
The petitions have reopened the debate on how far the state can go in regulating online speech.
Supporters of regulation argue that misinformation and harmful content must be controlled. Critics say the current framework goes much further and threatens democratic debate.
“The issue is not regulation,’ said a digital rights researcher. ‘The issue is unchecked control.”
As the case proceeds, attention will remain on how the judiciary balances security concerns with individual freedoms.
For content creators, journalists, and ordinary users, the outcome could shape how freely they can speak online.
For Indian Muslims and other marginalised groups, the decision may determine whether digital spaces remain a platform for speaking truth or become another area of silence.
As Kamra’s petition puts it, “The internet cannot be governed by fear.”
The Bombay High Court’s response to this challenge is likely to be watched closely across the country.
