MUMBAI: The petitions filed in HC by senior advocate Haresh Jagtiani and stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra contended that Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Amendment Rules, 2023), as amended in Oct 2025, and the Sahyog Portal “are illegal and beyond the scope of the IT Act, and in contravention of the Supreme Court’s 2015 judgment in Shreya Singhal case that upholds sanctity of a hearing as a necessary safeguard.”
Lack of safeguards would render the amended rule and portal illegal and arbitrary and the procedure “patently riddled with bias”, contended the two petitions filed through advocate Meenaz Kakalia.
The petitions were mentioned by senior counsel Navroz Seervai for Jagtiani and counsel Arti Raghavan for Kamra Friday before a division bench of Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Abhay Mantri.
According to the govt’s policy, Sahyog was developed to automate the process of sending notices by govt or its agency to intermediaries such as social media platforms and websites to facilitate removal or disabling of access to information or data being used to commit an unlawful act.
However, the petitions argue that Rule 3(1)(d) and the Portal itself create a takedown regime parallel to that of Section 69A of the IT Act and the Blocking Rules but without legally mandated safeguards. This constitutes a violation of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g)—for freedom of speech and trade—and is outside reasonable restrictions which the Constitution imposes, the petitions said.
Kamra’s petition said the Portal did away with the process of issuing a notice to the content’s originator, affording a hearing to the affected party, and passing a reasoned order before blocking it online. The Portal merely requires an officer to order a takedown, said the petition, adding “This order can be issued on a mere ipse dixit that such information is unlawful, and violates a law…” Kamra’s petition said though the Sahyog Portal was set up in Oct 2023–when his litigation against FCU was pending–its existence was significantly not informed to the HC.
As interim relief, the petitions now seek suspension of the Sahyog Portal and directions that no officer of the Central or any state govt could order blocking or takedown of any information without following mandated Section 69A IT Act procedure and Blocking Rules and a declaration that only these rules form the basis for any takedown.
Swati Deshpande is Senior editor at The Times of India, Mumbai, w...
Read MoreSwati Deshpande is Senior editor at The Times of India, Mumbai, where she has been covering courts for over a decade. She is passionate about law and works towards enlightening people about their statutory, legal and fundamental rights. She makes it her job to decipher for the public the truth, be it in an intricate civil dispute or in a gruesome criminal case.
Read Less