Back
seeks Centre's stand on blocking of Nehr Who X account
The on Monday sought the Union government's response to a petition challenging the blocking of the X account “@Nehr_who” operated by political commentator Kumar Nayan. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, hearing the matter, directed the government counsel to obtain instructions and listed the case for further hearing on . The court also questioned why the was not being shared with the account holder, observing that the contents in question were already in the .
Court Questions of Blocking Orders
Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate informed the court that this was the second time the account had been blocked. “I had been protected earlier by the order of this Court, after which a fresh notice has been issued to me concerning certain tweets and pursuant thereto, the entire account has been blocked,” Gupta submitted. The was produced before the bench, and after examining it, Justice Sharma remarked: “The contents are not such that you can’t give it to him [account holder]... Everything is in .”
The government counsel, however, maintained that the blocking orders are confidential in nature and sought time to take instructions. The court directed the counsel to return with a clear stand on .
Background: A Pattern of
This is not the first time Nayan's account has been targeted. On , the account was among 12 profiles blocked by the under . That provision empowers an authorised government official (not below the rank of Joint Secretary) to issue on grounds of national security, sovereignty, or public order.
Following the March blocking, the on ordered the restoration of Nayan’s account, along with that of another commentator, but directed that the specific allegedly objectionable posts remain withheld. The court also required Nayan to appear before a of the to determine whether those posts should continue to be blocked.
Despite the court’s direction, Nayan alleges he was never provided a copy of the March . Now, with the blocking, he contends that the government has imposed on his medium of expression, effectively circumventing the earlier judicial protection.
Petitioner’s Grievances: No Order, No Reason, No
In his petition, Nayan claims that X informed him on that it was enforcing a from the Ministry under Section 69A. The Ministry followed up with a notice on proposing to block the account and supplied a list of links allegedly relied upon for the action. However, the actual —which triggers the removal—was never provided to him, not even during the inter-departmental committee proceedings on that reviewed the matter under the .
Nayan argues that this lack of transparency violates his fundamental rights under Articles 14 (equality), 19(1)(a) ( ), 19(1)(g) (right to practise any profession), and 21 ( ) of the Constitution. He contends that the blocking of his account, which had over 2.5 lakh followers, amounts to an on his right to express opinions and engage with his audience.
Legal Analysis: Section 69A and Procedural Fairness
Section 69A of the IT Act allows the government to block public access to any information generated, transmitted, received, stored, or hosted in any computer resource if it is necessary in the interest of , defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence. The accompanying Rules prescribe a procedure that includes a and an opportunity for the content originator to be heard.
However, the ’s earlier orders—and now Justice Sharma’s observation—highlight a recurring tension: can the government block an entire account without providing the account holder a copy of the ? The Rules do not explicitly mandate disclosure of the order to the affected person, but courts have increasingly insisted on . If the government can withhold the order on grounds of , the affected person is left without the ability to challenge the specific reasons for the block, effectively rendering nugatory.
The present case also raises the issue of “ .” After the court ordered restoration in April, the government issued a fresh in July targeting the same account. Nayan argues this is an attempt to bypass the earlier judicial direction. The court will have to examine whether such repeated blocking, based on new but related content, violates the spirit of the earlier order.
Implications for Freedom of Speech and Digital Rights
This case is being closely watched by digital rights advocates and legal practitioners. It tests the limits of executive power under Section 69A, especially when applied to social media accounts that serve as platforms for political commentary. The outcome could set a precedent on the government’s obligation to share blocking orders and the permissible scope of .
If the court rules in favour of disclosure, it would strengthen procedural safeguards and ensure that blocking orders are subject to meaningful challenge. Conversely, if the government’s claim of is upheld, it may embolden the executive to block accounts with minimal transparency, raising serious concerns about arbitrary censorship.
The matter also intersects with the ongoing debate over the , which impose additional obligations on social media platforms to take down content on government directions. The ’s eventual decision will likely influence how platforms respond to such orders and how they balance user rights with compliance.
Conclusion
As the hearing on approaches, the ’s intervention underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding fundamental rights in the digital age. The core question remains: can the government block a social media account without sharing the with the account holder, especially when the allegedly objectionable content is already in the ? The answer will have far-reaching consequences for the freedom of expression online and the accountability of executive action in India.
