"Backdoor Censorship": Kunal Kamra's Final Stand Against the Sahyog Portal

In a fresh offensive against state-led digital regulation, stand-up comedian and satirist Kunal Kamra today moved the Bombay High Court to challenge the constitutional validity of the "Sahyog Portal" and the 2025 Amendment to the IT Rules. Kamra, alongside Senior Advocate Haresh Jagtiani, argues that the newly operationalized mechanism allows government officials to unilaterally bypass the rigorous procedural safeguards of the IT Act, effectively creating a "parallel content-blocking regime."

The petition comes at a critical juncture as the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) ramps up its "automated" enforcement under the amended Rule 3(1)(d). Mentioned before a bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Abhay Mantri, the plea contends that the Sahyog Portal empowers thousands of junior-level officials to issue takedown orders without the mandatory notice or hearing requirements upheld by the Supreme Court in the landmark Shreya Singhal judgment.

The Context (How We Got Here)

• The Trigger: On Nov 15, 2025, the government enforced the 2025 Amendment to the IT Rules, which obligates intermediaries to act on "reasoned intimations" via the Sahyog Portal within 36 hours.
• The Background: The Sahyog Portal, operated by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre, was designed to centralize and automate content removal requests. While the Karnataka High Court recently viewed it as a "facilitative tool," Kamra argues it has become a tool for "peremptory censorship."
• The Escalation: Kamra’s challenge follows his successful 2024 battle where the Bombay HC struck down the "Fact Check Unit" (FCU) amendment as unconstitutional. The current matter is listed for a detailed hearing on March 16, 2026.

The Key Players (Who & So What)

Kunal Kamra (Petitioner/Satirist): The Challenger. By focusing on the "chilling effect" on professional commentators, Kamra is testing whether the judiciary will allow "automated justice" to replace statutory review.

Justice Ravindra Ghuge (Bombay High Court): The Arbiter. Heading the bench that will decide if the Sahyog Portal’s lack of a pre-decisional hearing violates the principles of natural justice.

Sahyog Portal (I4C-led Platform): The Tool. An automated interface connecting over 50 government agencies directly to social media compliance officers, allowing for "instant" takedown requests.

The BIGSTORY Reframe (The "Code as Law" Threat)

The mainstream media is framing this as another "Comedian vs. State" scuffle, but the real story is the "Code as Law" transition. By moving from Section 69A (which requires a high-level committee and reasoned orders) to a portal-based "intimation" system, the government has replaced judicial oversight with a software interface.

The Sahyog Portal effectively removes the "human friction" of due process. When a takedown becomes as easy as a dashboard notification, the constitutional right to a hearing is replaced by a compliance ticker. The "reframe" here is that the government is trying to automate the suppression of speech under the guise of "technical efficiency," making the intermediary (X, Meta, Google) an uncompensated enforcement arm of the executive.

The Implications (Why This Matters)

• Algorithmic Censorship Loop: If the portal remains, intermediaries may use AI to preemptively delete content flagged by Sahyog to protect their "Safe Harbour" status, creating a cycle of invisible censorship.
• E-Commerce Complexity: The portal’s recent expansion to e-commerce marketplaces means listings (Amazon, Flipkart) can be removed instantly, potentially conflicting with FDI rules and platform neutrality.
• Legal Fragmenting: With the Karnataka HC upholding the portal and Bombay HC hearing a fresh challenge, the case is almost certainly destined for the Supreme Court to resolve the conflict between regional benches.

The Closing Question (Now, Think About This)

If a government portal can delete your content without ever sending you a notice, is the "Safe Harbour" protecting the platforms, or is it just protecting the state from accountability?

FAQs

Why has Kunal Kamra moved the Bombay High Court in 2026?He is challenging the constitutional validity of the Sahyog Portal and the 2025 amendment to IT Rule 3(1)(d), alleging they allow arbitrary content blocking without notice.

What is the Sahyog Portal controversy?Critics argue the portal allows government officials to bypass the procedural safeguards (like hearings and reasoned orders) mandated under Section 69A of the IT Act.

What is the 2025 amendment to IT Rule 3(1)(d)? It requires social media platforms to remove "unlawful" content within 36 hours of receiving "reasoned intimation" through the government's Sahyog Portal.

Did the Bombay High Court stay the Sahyog Portal? No. The court has listed the matter for a detailed hearing on March 16, 2026, without granting an immediate interim stay.

How does the Sahyog Portal affect social media users?It enables government agencies to request the takedown of posts or accounts. Users often find their content removed or accounts suspended without prior notice or a chance to appeal.

Sources

News Coverage

• The Hindu: Kunal Kamra moves High Court against Sahyog portal, calls it assault on free speech
• The Indian Express: ‘It strikes at the heart of democracy’: Kunal Kamra, senior lawyer approach Bombay HC against Sahyog Portal

Context & Analysis

• Bar and Bench: Kunal Kamra and Senior Advocate Haresh Jagtiani move Bombay High Court against Sahyog portal
• LawBeat: Kunal Kamra Moves Bombay HC Challenging Sahyog Portal, 2025 IT Rules Amendment