Bombay HC asks Centre to file reply on Kunal Kamra’s plea

The Bombay Excessive Court docket on Thursday directed the Union authorities to file an affidavit by July 29 in response to a petition filed by slapstick comedian Kunal Kamra. The petition challenges the constitutional validity of the Sahyog Portal and the 2025 modification to Rule 3(1)(d) of the Data Know-how (Middleman Pointers and Digital Media Ethics Code) Guidelines, 2021. Mr. Kamra has contended that the provisions allow content material takedowns with out safeguards.

A Division Bench of Appearing Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad scheduled the matter for listening to on August 14. The courtroom granted Mr. Kamra time until August 6 to file his rejoinder to the federal government’s reply.

Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai, showing for Mr. Kamra, submitted that the Union authorities had not filed its affidavit regardless of being granted alternatives. He stated the matter pertained to Article 19(1)(a) and anxious freedom of speech and expression.

Extra Solicitor Normal Anil Singh, representing the Centre, requested time to position the federal government’s response on document. Mr. Seervai opposed the request and sought an early listening to.

The Bench directed the Centre to file its affidavit by July 29 and granted Mr. Kamra time until August 6 for his rejoinder. Mr. Seervai urged the courtroom to document that the extension can be the federal government’s “final probability” to file its response. Justice Ghuge didn’t settle for this request.

Mr. Kamra moved the Excessive Court docket earlier this yr difficult the Sahyog Portal and the 2025 modification to Rule 3(1)(d). The petition argues that the mechanism creates a parallel content-blocking framework that circumvents safeguards beneath Part 69A of the Data Know-how Act, 2000.

The plea contends that the Sahyog Portal permits content material blocking with out prior discover to customers, violating pure justice rules and the free speech assure beneath Article 19(1)(a). It additional states that Rule 3(1)(d) and the Sahyog Portal are extremely vires the IT Act and opposite to the Supreme Court docket’s ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015).

Based on the petition, Rule 3(1)(d) and the Sahyog Portal can’t derive legitimacy from Part 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, as Part 79 gives exemptions to intermediaries and doesn’t authorise an impartial takedown regime. The plea additionally contends that the provisions create a framework parallel to Part 69A and the Blocking Guidelines with out incorporating safeguards, rendering them manifestly arbitrary and violative of Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g).

Mr. Kamra has additionally challenged the delegation of powers to State governments and departments to problem information-blocking instructions, contending that such powers fall inside the Union’s unique legislative area beneath Checklist I of the Seventh Schedule to the Structure.

The Karnataka Excessive Court docket, whereas deciding a problem by X Corp, had held that the Sahyog Portal isn’t an instrument of censorship however ensures cooperation between intermediaries and authorities businesses.