Back
KRISHNA S.DIXIT
X Corp. – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORDER :
(Krishna S. Dixit, J.)
Petitioner, claiming to be an Intermediary under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereafter 'Act'), is knocking at the doors of Writ Court complaining against certain Blocking Orders issued by the respondents, whereby it is directed to bar access of certain information to the public, by effecting suspension of some accounts on Twitter i.e., www.twitter.com. In the alternative, petitioner seeks a direction at the hands of this court 'to modify the Blocking Orders to the extent of Table A of Annexure S to revoke the account level directions and instead identify specific tweets which are violative of Section 69A of the IT Act with reasons.' The respondents vide letter dated 27 June 2022 have warned the petitioner of serious consequences such as withdrawal of protection availing under section 79(1) of the Act and initiation of criminal proceedings as well if these orders are not complied with.
2. Particulars of the said orders are furnished by the petitioner in a tabular form as under:
| Blocking Order date | Accounts to be blocked | Tweets to be blocked |
| 02.02.2021 | 256 URLs and 1 hashtag | |
| 04.02.2021 | 1178 | 0 |
| 16.02.2021 | 6 | 0 |
Pornographic website – Social media account compromised - Removal or access disablement of offending content to be effective even within India, a search engine must block the search results througho....
The court emphasized that disputes governed by a contractual relationship between private parties may not be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution, and that once the constitutional validi....
The impugned rule does not violate constitutional rights as it aims to curb misinformation while preserving the right to free speech, establishing clear parameters around false content concerning gov....
The court affirmed the necessity of a liberal approach to condonation of delay in legal proceedings to promote substantive justice, while refraining from commenting on the magistrate's jurisdiction r....
The amended Rule 3(1)(b)(v) is unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, is vague, ultra vires, and imposes disproportionate restrictions on free expres....
The 2023 amendment to regulate online content was held unconstitutional for violating fundamental rights, lacking clear guidelines, and enabling arbitrary government censorship.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
