On Monday, the Delhi High Court ruled to reinstate the X accounts belonging to ‘DrNimoYadav’ and ‘Nher_who’, while allowing for the temporary blocking of specific posts deemed objectionable by the government.
The account holders, Prateek Sharma and Kumar Nayan, have been instructed to provide identification details to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).
Both accounts were suspended by X Corp following a directive from MeitY to restrict access. X Corp expressed its concern regarding the government’s approach, arguing that it was inappropriate to block entire accounts rather than just the individual posts that might be problematic.
In their petitions to the Delhi High Court, Sharma and Nayan claimed that the government’s sweeping blocking orders were issued without prior notification, a chance for a hearing, or a justified reason, rendering them unlawful.
The Ministry informed the court that it would offer both individuals a chance to present their case and highlighted that they could seek a review of the blocking order under Rule 14 of the IT Rules. However, Nayan’s attorney, Apar Gupta, argued that they had not received the government’s blocking order.
Justice Purushaindra Kaurav ordered the restoration of the accounts, contingent upon certain conditions. The court indicated that once Sharma and Nayan are informed of the purportedly objectionable tweets, they would commit to removing them, while retaining the right to contest this decision before the review committee.
Furthermore, once the individuals provide the necessary identification details to the ministry, Justice Kaurav mandated that the ministry must inform them of the specific objectionable posts, which will then be either removed or temporarily blocked by X Corp, with the final determination regarding these posts resting with the review committee.
While allowing for the temporary blocking of the identified objectionable posts, the court emphasized that the accounts should be restored. However, the ministry retains the right to monitor these accounts and take necessary legal actions as required.
Previously, X Corp had communicated to MeitY that the orders to block accounts were excessively broad and infringed upon the rights of account holders, particularly since it would prevent them from using X in India on a permanent basis.
In a letter dated March 19 to MeitY, X Corp stated that blocking accounts at the account level, as opposed to just individual posts, was disproportionate and did not comply with the legal requirement for the least intrusive measures. They also requested that appropriate measures be taken to unblock twelve accounts.
In justifying the blocking of Sharma’s account, MeitY cited that it contained defamatory content, including manipulated images and videos of the Prime Minister that raised controversial questions about the government and defamed the Prime Minister.
During the hearing on Monday, senior advocate Vrinda Grover, representing Sharma, argued that none of Sharma’s tweets were even remotely threatening to national sovereignty, asserting, “This is a free country. Personal dislikes or differing views cannot be suppressed.”
