The telecom service providers and social media intermediaries will then have to take action against such content failing which they would lose the safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act.

Kamra moved the Court challenging the revised Rule 3(1)(b)(v).

A division bench of Justices GS Patel and Neela Gokhale asked the Central government to respond om whether there was there any factual background or reasoning that necessitated this amendment.

"Was there any factual background or reasoning that necessitated the amendment? The petitioner (Kamra) is anticipating some kind of impact due to this amendment,” the bench said.

The petition was then posted for hearing on April 21.

"They strike at the very rule of law and our democratic polity, as they constitute a direct assault by the respondent on freedom of thought, speech and expression, referred to by the Supreme Court as one of the pillars of our Constitution," the plea said.

Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai, appearing for Kamra, said -

"These rules are there, the chilling effect is already there. The rule is enough to chill people. After publication of this notification, I am liable to fact checking committee. I will not have say when it is retrospectively applied,” he said.

“This is in the face of Shreya Singhal, half a dozen Supreme Court judgments. This violates Article 14 and 19(2) of Constitution,” he added.

“This identification cannot be by the government itself. There cannot be restriction on Article 19 at all. The rules do not come within the reasonable restrictions. Reasonable runs through it. This is against interest of public, this is neither reasonable. Look at the natural justice angle, there is no show cause, no notice,” he further submitted.

Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, appearing for the Central government, said that the amendments have not yet come into force and hence, no interim order would be required.

“I am only saying there is no urgency for interim relief. The amendment will kick in only after a notification is issued. Milords may grant me time to file a reply,” he said.

The Court did not pass any interim order but asked the government to respond and posted the case for hearing on April 21.