01Facts
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).
¶ 1-2The account was withheld in India under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
¶ 2On 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.
¶ 4The 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.
¶ 502Issues
i.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
¶ 5ii.2. Whether the Petitioner’s account could be restored pending a final decision by the Inter-Ministerial Committee
¶ 6-803Law Applied
Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which provides the power to issue directions for blocking public access to information.
¶ 2Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards For Blocking For Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, specifically Rule 14 regarding the review mechanism.
¶ 6, 10Procedural directions for representation established by the Division Bench in Tanul Thakur v. Union of India & Ors.
¶ 12Provisions in the judgment · 1
Information Technology Act, 2000 Section 69A
04Reasoning
The court observed that the Petitioner's request for account restoration, conditional upon the suspension of specific objectionable content, was reasonable.
¶ 7It did not immediately adjudicate the legality of the Blocking Order but deferred the substantive determination to the Inter-Ministerial Committee.
¶ 10By 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.
¶ 8-9The court emphasized the importance of the internal review mechanism under the 2009 Rules to determine whether the content actually violated statutory provisions.
¶ 1005Holding
The court directed X Corp to immediately restore the Petitioner’s account, subject to the temporary suspension/blocking of the specific tweets mentioned in the Blocking Order.
¶ 8-9The 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.
¶ 11-12The Committee was ordered to consider if the tweets are permissible under the IT Act.
¶ 10The court granted MeitY liberty to monitor the account and take legal recourse if new objectionable material is posted.
¶ 14The petition was disposed of with all rights and contentions left open.
¶ 15-16Original Court PDF
Prateek SharmavsUnion Of India And Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
