Sandeep Singh vs Union Of India & Anr.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~88
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4696/2026 and CM APPL. 22979/2026
Date of decision: 13.04.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
SANDEEP SINGH .....Petitioner
(Through: Mr. Apar Gupta, Ms. Avanti Deshpande, Mr. Naman
Kumar, Ms. Indumugi C., Advocates.)

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents

(Through: Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC, Ms. Avshreya Rudy, CGSC, Ms.
Ayushi Srivastava, Mr. Ayush Tanwar, Mr. Arpan Narwal,
Mr.Kushagra Malik, Advocates for R-1.
Mr. Ankit Parhar, Mr. Tejpal Singh Rathore, Mr. Abhishek Kumar,
Ms.Tanish Gupta and Ms. Sanchli Sethi, Advocates for R-2.)


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)


1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:-
“a. Issue a direction to Respondent No. 1 & 2 for restoring/stop
withholding the account of the Petitioner on the platform X, bearing the
handle “@ActivistSandeep” within the territory of India;

b. Issue a writ, direction or order Respondent No.1 to produce the
Blocking Order issued under Section 69A of the Information Technology
Act, 2000 along with all supporting material before this Hon’ble Court;
and

c. Issue a writ, direction, or order to ensure that any censorship by
Respondent No. 1 or 2 with regards to the Petitioner is carried out
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:18.04.2026
12:41:54

strictly in accordance with provisions of the Information Technology Act,
2000 and the Rules framed thereunder, namely the 8 & 9 of the
Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for
Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 and in conformity with the
fundamental rights and freedom guaranteed under Article 14, 19(l)(a)
and 21 under Part III of the Indian Constitution, insofar as the same
pertains to the Petitioner; and

d. Pass such other or further writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble
Court.”

2. The facts of the instant case would indicate that on 19.03.2026 the
petitioner received a communication from X Corp. (formerly known as
Twitter) i.e. respondent no.2 herein (hereinafter referred to as “ said
Intermediary ”), informing him that a blocking order has been issued by the
Ministry under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (“ the
Act ”), and the account of the petitioner has been withheld/blocked in India.
It appears that on 27.03.2026, Union of India represented by the Secretary
Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology i.e. respondent no.1
herein (hereinafter referred to as “ MeitY ”) called upon the petitioner to
furnish a valid ID proof, subsequent thereto, it was given to understand that
the petitioner would be afforded an opportunity of hearing before the Inter-
Ministerial Committee (“ Committee ”) .
3. The matter was called upon for the first time by the Court on
09.04.2026 and the Court directed for issuance of notice.
4. The petitioner, who claims to be a social worker, and is operating an
X account submits that he would undertake to remove the alleged
objectionable/ offending material, if any, subject to the order(s) to be passed
by the Committee, after extending an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner. He submits that in case the petitioner is to have any other
grievance, liberty be granted to take appropriate recourse in accordance with
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:18.04.2026
12:41:54

law.
5. Mr. Amit Tiwari, CGSC assisted by Ms. Avshreya Pratap Singh
Rudy, CGSC, who is present in Court submits that the identity of the
petitioner has already been verified and on 09.04.2026, the petitioner has
been informed to avail the opportunity of hearing on 15.04.2026 at 04:15
PM at Electronics Niketan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi before
the Committee. It is, thus, submitted that the Committee after hearing the
petitioner shall pass appropriate orders and the matter shall be taken to its
logical conclusion.
6. Having considered the overall facts and circumstances, the Court
finds that the controversy involved herein is largely covered by the decisions
passed by this Court in the cases of Prateek Sharma v. Union of India &
1 2
Ors ., Kumar Nayan v. Union of India & Anr. and Shilpa Kumari vs.
3
Union of India & Ors . Therefore, the Court finds it appropriate to issue
following directions:-
(i) Let the petitioner to appear before the Inter-Ministerial Committee
on the date and time as stated hereinabove. On petitioner’s
appearance, let the said Committee to point out the alleged
objectionable/offending material posted by the petitioner on his X
account;
(ii) Let the Inter-Ministerial Committee to then inform the said
Intermediary to temporarily block/suspend the alleged
objectionable/offending material, and upon compliance with the same
let the petitioner’s X account be restored;

1
W.P. (C) 4070 of 2026; order dated 06.04.2026
2
W.P. (C) 4377 of 2026; order dated 06.04.2026
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:18.04.2026
12:41:54

(iii) Let further action concerning the present lis as also the content of
the petitioner’s X account be subject to the final adjudication and the
order(s) to be passed by the Inter-Ministerial Committee; and
(iv) MeitY shall be at liberty to monitor the material posted on the
petitioner’s X account and, in case, any objectionable material is
posted, it shall be at liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance
with law.
7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant petition
stands disposed of along with the pending application.
8. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.


(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
APRIL 13, 2026
Nc



3
W.P.(C) 4651/2026; order dated 08.04.2026
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:NEHA CHOPRA
Signing Date:18.04.2026
12:41:54