The High Court granted four weeks for the Centre to file a detailed affidavit responding to the allegations raised in the petition.
Image Source: X
The Delhi High Court today declined to order the immediate restoration of the blocked X account of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), directing instead that the statutory Review Committee examine the challenge raised against the government’s blocking action taken on national security grounds.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the order while hearing a petition filed by CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke against the Centre’s decision to suspend access to the party’s X account. While refusing interim relief at this stage, the Court asked the Union Government to place its stand on record and directed the Review Committee under the Information Technology blocking framework to consider the petitioner’s objections.
Advertisement
The High Court issued notice to the Union Government and X, granting four weeks for the Centre to file a detailed affidavit responding to the allegations raised in the petition.
Advertisement
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for Abhijeet Dipke, urged the Court to restore the account pending further proceedings and sought disclosure of the blocking order issued by the authorities. He argued that even if the petitioner had not been supplied the order, the Court itself should examine the reasons cited for the blocking action.
Sibal submitted that courts in earlier matters had permitted selective blocking of allegedly objectionable posts while allowing broader access to social media accounts. He argued that a similar approach could be adopted in the present case if specific content was under objection.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that the legal framework governing blocking of online accounts continues to evolve and said the issues raised would require fuller consideration after hearing the government’s position.
The Bench remarked that the present matter appeared different from certain previous cases cited by the petitioner, indicating that the authorities’ concerns may relate to the overall conduct and activity associated with the account rather than isolated posts alone.
When pressed for immediate production of the blocking order, the Court stated that neither the petitioner nor the Bench had yet examined the order, but clarified that it was not inclined to call for the record at this preliminary stage. The Court added that it could seek the complete material later if necessary.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union Government, opposed the request for interim restoration and questioned the role of the intermediary platform during the proceedings.
The Court also took note of the statutory review mechanism available under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, and directed the Review Committee to independently assess the grievances raised by the petitioner.
“The submissions will have to be examined after the Union of India files a comprehensive affidavit,” the Court observed while dictating the order.
During the proceedings, Akhil Sibal informed the Court that Abhijeet Dipke is currently outside India and requested permission for him to participate in the Review Committee proceedings through video conferencing and through an authorised representative.
The Bench observed that such a request could be placed before the Review Committee, which would consider it in accordance with law.
Advertisement
