There were “thousands of instances” of policemen asking for content takedowns, senior advocate N Seervai, appearing for stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, told the Bombay High Court during the hearing of Kamra’s challenge to the Ministry of Home Affairs’ Sahyog Portal, as reported by LiveLaw [archive].

Kamra to amend petition after recent draft amendments to IT rules: The division bench comprising of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad granted Kamra one week to amend his petition in light of the Centre’s latest draft amendments to the IT Rules. The court also gave the Union government two weeks to file its reply.

Why is satire an objectionable post? “A recent instance of a post was asked to be taken down just because it was on a Chief Minister’s visit to Davos. The policeman said that the content was objectionable but how can that be objectionable at all?” asked Seervai.

He was referring to the Maharashtra Cyber Police’s notice to X requesting the removal of @gajabhauX’s satirical post on Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis’ visit to Davos. “The post appears intended to hurt the sentiments of a particular group, promote societal disharmony, incite tension, and aggravate the law and order situation in Maharashtra,” the notice stated, according to a Hindustan Times report published on February 6, 2026.

Public viewing of proceedings disabled: “Public viewing of the proceedings has been disabled by the Hon’ble Court.” MediaNama attempted to attend the Bombay High Court hearing; however, the online portal for Court No. 46—where proceedings before Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad were scheduled—displayed a message indicating that public viewing had been disabled.

Some Background: Kunal Kamra filed a petition in the Bombay High Court on February 4, 2026, challenging the constitutionality of the Sahyog Portal, a 2024 platform created by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) under the Ministry of Home Affairs to automate online content takedown and blocking orders.

His petition specifically challenges:

• Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules, which requires intermediaries to remove content flagged as unlawful by central or state authorities.
  
• Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000, which strips intermediaries of safe-harbour protection if they fail to remove such content after receiving government notice.

Case details:

• Kunal Kamra v. Union of India — WP (L) 4061 of 2026
• Haresh Jagtiani v. Union of India — WP (L) 4044 of 2026

In February 2026, the Delhi High Court recently observed that X cannot invoke safe-harbour exemptions to compel platforms to join the Sahyog Portal.

Read more about RTIs filed by Medianama regarding Sahyog portal: 

• Zoom, Quora on the List of 94 Companies Onboarded on the Sahyog Portal, Reveals RTI
• Sahyog Portal to Handle Data on Non-Consensual Intimate Images, But Privacy Measures Not Shared
• Sahyog Portal Expanding Into E-Commerce, Raises FDI Compliance Concerns