The Bombay High Court on Friday adjourned sine die the petitions filed by comedian Kunal Kamra and Senior Advocate Haresh Jagtiani challenging the constitutional validity of the ‘Sahyog Portal’ and the 2025 amendment to Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Advait Sethna noted that the Supreme Court had recently stayed proceedings pending before the Bombay and Karnataka High Courts concerning the same issue.

In view of the Supreme Court’s order, the High Court adjourned the petitions sine die.

Kamra’s petition challenges provisions that facilitate the blocking of content posted on social media platforms. He has argued that the Sahyog Portal creates a parallel mechanism for content blocking that bypasses the safeguards prescribed under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

According to Kamra, the mechanism allows online content to be blocked without giving prior notice to the affected user, thereby violating principles of natural justice and the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech.

The petition also contends that Rule 3(1)(d) and the Sahyog Portal are ultra vires the IT Act and contrary to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.

Kamra has further argued that the mechanism cannot derive legal authority from Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, since Section 79 primarily provides an exemption from liability to intermediaries.

The plea states that Rule 3(1)(d) and the Sahyog Portal establish a parallel content takedown framework outside the mechanism under Section 69A and the Blocking Rules, without incorporating the safeguards required under the law.

It has also been argued that the framework is manifestly arbitrary and violates Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, while not falling within the permissible restrictions under Articles 19(2) and 19(6).

The issue had also come before the Karnataka High Court in a challenge by X Corp, where the Court had held that the Sahyog Portal was not an instrument of censorship but a mechanism intended to facilitate cooperation between social media intermediaries and government agencies.

The Bombay High Court has now kept Kamra’s petition pending in view of the Supreme Court’s intervention.

Case: Kunal Kamra v. Union of India, WP (L) No. 4061 of 2026.