Social media accounts may be restored pending review by blocking specific objectionable content instead of entire accounts.

The Petitioner, who operates the X (formerly Twitter) account "@DrNimoYadav" with approximately 13,56,000 followers, challenged a blocking order dated 18.03.2026 issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).

The account was withheld in India under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

On 27.03.2026, the Government of India (GoI) requested the Petitioner to provide a government-issued ID to verify his identity for an opportunity to be heard before the Inter-Ministerial Committee.

The Petitioner argued the order was passed without following natural justice and was de hors the IT Act, but offered to delete the specific objectionable tweets to facilitate the restoration of the account.

1. Whether the blocking order issued by MeitY under Section 69A of the IT Act was legally sustainable and compliant with the principles of natural justice

2. Whether the Petitioner’s account could be restored pending a final decision by the Inter-Ministerial Committee

Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which provides the power to issue directions for blocking public access to information.

Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards For Blocking For Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, specifically Rule 14 regarding the review mechanism.

Procedural directions for representation established by the Division Bench in Tanul Thakur v. Union of India & Ors.

The court observed that the Petitioner's request for account restoration, conditional upon the suspension of specific objectionable content, was reasonable.

It did not immediately adjudicate the legality of the Blocking Order but deferred the substantive determination to the Inter-Ministerial Committee.

By directing the temporary blocking of only the specific tweets cited in the order while restoring the rest of the account, the court balanced the Petitioner’s interests with the regulatory framework of the IT Act.

The court emphasized the importance of the internal review mechanism under the 2009 Rules to determine whether the content actually violated statutory provisions.

The Petitioner was directed to verify his identity with the GoI within 12 hours and appear before the Inter-Ministerial Committee for a hearing on the merits of the content.

The Committee was ordered to consider if the tweets are permissible under the IT Act.

The court granted MeitY liberty to monitor the account and take legal recourse if new objectionable material is posted.

The petition was disposed of with all rights and contentions left open.