The Bombay High Court, sitting as a division bench on July 16, 2026, ordered the central government to submit its reply by July 29 in the case Kunal Kamra vs. Union of India. The petition, filed by the comedian, challenges the 2025 amendment to Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (IT) Rules, 2021, and the constitutionality of the newly introduced Sahyog Portal.

Background

Developed by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the Sahyog Portal was intended to streamline coordination between authorities and online intermediaries for rapid removal of objectionable content. Critics, led by Kamra, argue that the portal circumvents statutory safeguards under Section 69A of the IT Act and imposes a 36‑hour takedown mandate without adequate procedural checks.

Core Allegations in Kamra’s Petition

The petition highlights three fundamental flaws: (i) No Prior Notice – creators are not informed before their content is removed; (ii) Denial of Hearing – affected parties are denied a fair opportunity to contest the takedown; and (iii) Absence of Reasoned Orders – takedown directives are issued without a written order explaining the justification.

Constitutional Implications and Future Outlook

Kamra further raises a pivotal federal question: the delegation of content‑blocking powers to individual states and departments may breach the Union’s exclusive legislative competence over online communication, as enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. If the court upholds this view, it could reaffirm the central government’s primacy in digital regulation and curtail state‑level overreach.

Next Steps

The next hearing is slated for August 14, 2026, while Kamra has been granted until August 6 to file his rejoinder. The outcome could have far‑reaching consequences for India’s internet governance framework and could influence global discourse on digital free speech and state‑imposed censorship.