Kunal Kamra's Legal 'Takedown' Bid Against Sahyog Portal: What Does The Platform Do?

In a major legal challenge concerning digital freedom, stand-up comic Kunal Kamra and Senior Advocate Haresh Jagtiani moved the Bombay High Court on Friday. Their petitions contest the constitutional validity of the central government’s Sahyog portal

and a recent amendment to the Information Technology (IT) Rules, 2021, arguing that these mechanisms enable “covert censorship” without legal accountability.

The central government, primarily through the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), defends the Sahyog portal not as a tool of censorship, but as a “facilitation mechanism” designed to bring order and accountability to the chaotic landscape of the internet.

What is the Sahyog Portal?

Launched in late 2024 and

managed by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Sahyog portal is a centralised digital dashboard. Its stated purpose is to streamline and automate the process of issuing content takedown notices to online intermediaries, including social media giants like X (formerly Twitter), Meta, and YouTube, as well as e-commerce platforms.

The portal functions as a high-speed communication bridge between state agencies and digital platforms. When a government department identifies content it deems “unlawful,” a designated officer can upload a takedown request directly to the portal. The intermediary is then notified through the interface and is typically required to act within 36 hours to avoid losing its “safe harbour” protection—the legal immunity that prevents platforms from being held liable for content posted by their users.

The Legal Basis and the Conflict

The primary point of contention lies in which section of the IT Act, 2000, the government uses to justify the portal’s operations:

Section 69A (The Standard Path): This is the traditional law for blocking content. It contains strict procedural safeguards, including a mandatory hearing for the content creator and a reasoned order by a central committee.

Section 79(3)(b) (The Sahyog Path): The Sahyog portal operates under this section, which allows the government to notify intermediaries of “actual knowledge” regarding unlawful acts.

Petitioners argue that by using Sahyog, the government has created a “parallel regime” that bypasses the safeguards of Section 69A. They contend that the portal allows thousands of officers—from local police to central bureaucrats—to trigger content removals without ever informing the person who posted the content or providing them with a chance to defend their work.

Why the Challenge Now?

The challenge follows an October 2025 amendment to Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, which formalised the portal’s role. While the government defends Sahyog as a necessary tool to combat cybercrime, hate speech, and threats to public order in real time, critics like Kamra and Jagtiani describe it as a “digital guillotine”.

They allege that the lack of transparency—where “critical speech disappears silently”—strikes at the heart of democratic discourse. The Bombay High Court has slated the matter for further consideration on March 16, setting the stage for a landmark ruling on whether administrative efficiency can legally override the principles of natural justice in the digital age.