Kamra and Jagtiani also challenged an amendment to the Information Technology (IT) Rules that requires social media or online intermediaries to remove such content within 36 hours.
A High Court Division Bench will hear the matter on March 16.
We explain how the Sahyog website works, what the amended rules say, and the objections that have been raised against both.
The website was to bring all authorised agencies and intermediaries onto a single platform, enabling and automating immediate action against unlawful online content.
According to RTI data obtained by The Indian Express, more than 2,300 blocking orders were sent to 19 online platforms, including WhatsApp, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram, between October 2024 and October 2025 through the portal.
Story continues below this ad
The data also reveals that more than 118 intermediaries have been onboarded to Sahyog, which suggests an expanding universe of platforms required to comply with state-issued takedown demands. The blocking orders were sent by Central, state and Union Territory (UT) agencies.
This is not the first time the Sahyog Portal has been challenged in court.
Social media platform X, formerly Twitter, had earlier approached the Karnataka High Court against the portal. A single-judge bench of Karnataka HC had upheld its validity in September, 2025. X’s appeal is pending before a division (two-judge) bench there.
The amended IT Rule in question
In October 2025, the Union government notified an amendment to Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules. This required intermediaries to remove or disable access within 36 hours to information used for unlawful acts upon “actual knowledge”.
Story continues below this ad
“Actual knowledge” would arise from court orders or written notices from authorised senior officers that specify the legal basis, statutory provision, the nature of the unlawful act and an exact online location (URL/identifier) of the content.
The amended rule came into effect on November 15, 2025. According to the government, it introduced additional safeguards to ensure intermediaries remove unlawful content in “a transparent, proportionate and accountable manner”.
Challenges and objections
Petitioners Kamra and Jagtiani alleged that the Sahyog Portal “unlawfully conferred” powers to thousands of Central and state officers to “peremptorily issue takedown/ blocking orders, without following the procedure mandated under the IT Act”.
Story continues below this ad
The amended IT Rule, the petitioners contend, allows “unilateral takedown or blocking” of internet information through orders from designated officers, bypassing procedures to issue notices or provide hearings for content originators.
These provisions, as per the petitioners, “create a takedown regime parallel to Section 69A (Power to block information from public access) of the IT Act and the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (Blocking Rules)” without any safeguards.
The petitioners said that impugned decisions are in violation of fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g) (to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business) and Article 14 (equality before law).
The petitioners argued that such conferring of powers to government officers results in “an unconstitutional and unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech”, going beyond the restrictions provided under the Constitution.
Story continues below this ad
“Rule 3(1)(d) and the Sahyog Portal render all information on the internet vulnerable to arbitrary takedowns, provide for no remedy against such action, and effectively give thousands of government officers at the Central and State level unchecked power over information flow on the internet. It strikes at the heart of democracy, and a citizen’s right to information,” the pleas say.
What the petitioners have sought
The petitioners sought a declaration from the Bombay High Court that the amended Rule 3(1)(d) does not confer authority to issue blocking orders.
The separate petitions by Kamra and Jagtiani also sought that the court should declare that the Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act does not confer authority to issue information blocking orders.
They asked the court to issue a direction to “forthwith disable and dismantle the Sahyog Portal”. Pending final disposal, the pleas seek interim suspension of the portal.
Story continues below this ad
Pending the pleas, the petitioners seek interim reliefs to restrain authorities from enforcing amended Rule 3 (1) (d) and a direction that any government officer cannot issue information blocking or taking down orders without procedure required under Section 69A of IT Act.
