Bombay High Court Orders Centre to Respond to Kunal Kamra IT Rules Petition
The Bombay High Court in Mumbai on Thursday directed the Central government to file an affidavit by July 29 in response to a petition filed by stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra. The petition challenges the constitutional validity of the Sahyog Portal and an Information Technology (IT) Rules amendment regarding online content blocking.
Kamra’s petition, which was originally filed in February, argues that the Sahyog Portal grants sweeping powers to authorities to take down online content. The comedian contends that the portal allows content removal with no prior notice and no checks for potential bias.
Additionally, Kamra is challenging an amendment to the IT Rules that requires social media intermediaries to remove objectionable content within 36 hours. According to the petition, these new rules could enable the government to take down content without adequate safeguards, raising concerns over potential misuse and the muzzling of online content.
On Thursday, Kamra’s senior counsel Navroz Seervai mentioned the petition before a division bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad. Seervai questioned the lack of any reply from the Central government to date, despite earlier directions issued by the court after the petition was filed in February. Seervai told the court that the legal issues raised in the challenge are significant.
In response, Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, appearing on behalf of the Central government, requested time from the court. He stated that the government's response affidavit would be filed by the July 29 deadline.
The court's decision comes amid a similar legal challenge. Mumbai-based senior advocate Haresh Jagtiani has also separately filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Amendment Rules, 2023), as amended in October 2025, and the Sahyog Portal. Jagtiani’s petition challenges the rules on the grounds that they empower the government with a unilateral takedown ability.
