[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Prateek Sharma vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 April, 2026
$~84
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4070/2026 and CM APPL. 19977/2026
Date of Decision: 06.04.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
PRATEEK SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Vrinda Grover, with Mr. Apar
Gupta, Mr. Nakul Gandhi, Ms. Siddhi
Sahoo, Mr. Gurdeep Singh, Mr.
Soutik Banerjee Ms. Devika Tulsiani
and Ms. Indumugi C., Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.
Amit Tiwari (CGSC), Ms. Avshreya
Pratap Singh Rudy, (CGSC) with Ms.
Usha Jamnal, Ms. Nyasa Sharma,.
Mr. Ankit Khatri, Mr. Amit Gupta,
Mr. RV Prabhat, Mr. Shubham
Sharma, Mr. Yash Wardhan Sharma,
Mr. Naman, Advocates for UOI.
Mr. Ankit Parhar, Mr. Tejpal Singh
Rathore, Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Ms.
Tanish Gupta, Ms. Sanchli Sethi,
Advocates for R-2/ X.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, primarily, to seek
the production of a blocking order passed by respondent no. 1-Ministry of
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:07.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
20:06:30 W.P.(C) 4070/2026 Page 1 of 4 KUMAR KAURAV
Electronics and Information Technology (hereinafter "MeitY"); and the
restoration of his account on the respondent no. 2 platform-X Corp.
(hereinafter "X").
2. The petitioner contends that it operates an X account with the
username "@DrNimoYadav", and has approximately 13,56,000 followers.
On 19.03.2026, it is contended that the petitioner received a communication
from X, informing him that a blocking order has been issued by MeitY
under Section 69A of the the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter
"IT Act"), and the account of the petitioner has been withheld/blocked in
India. It has also been stated that earlier as well, his account had been
suspended, but was subsequently restored by X.
3. The case was first listed before this Court on 30.03.2026 when X
placed on record a document containing in a redacted form, inter alia, the
blocking order dated 18.03.2026 issued by MeitY (hereinafter "Blocking
Order"). The same was also shared with the petitioner. On the said date,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Ms. Vrindra Grover
had submitted that if the petitioner was to be apprised of the material/content
which according to MeitY is objectional, necessary steps in relation thereto
could be taken.
4. Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing
for the respondent no. 1 i.e., the Government of India („GoI‟) has brought to
the notice of the Court a communication dated 27.03.2026 made by the GoI
to the petitioner, requiring the latter to share a valid Government issued
identity card for the purposes of identity verification, in order to grant the
petitioner an opportunity of hearing before the Inter Ministerial Committee
(hereinafter "Committee") to submit his views/ clarification.
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:07.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
20:06:30 W.P.(C) 4070/2026 Page 2 of 4 KUMAR KAURAV
5. Ms. Grover has submitted that the Blocking Order passed by MeitY
is de hors the provisions of the IT Act. She contends that - first, the grounds
provided under Section 69A for the blocking of information are not
applicable to the case of the petitioner; and second, that principles of natural
justice have not been complied with before the passing of the Blocking
Order. However, while reiterating the stand taken by her on the previous
date of hearing, she submits that without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of the petitioner, he is ready and willing to delete the allegedly
objectional tweets in terms of the Blocking Order, and the petitioner‟s
account on X could, in turn, be restored
6. Mr. Sharma submits that the GoI is conducting itself in accordance
with the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereinafter
"IT Act") and the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards For
Blocking For Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter
"the Rules"). He also contends that the request for restoration of the
petitioner‟s X account can be looked into by the Committee, which has
granted an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He submits that at this
stage the Court ought not to make any interim arrangement.
7. Having considered the submissions made by both the parties and
perused the material on record, the Court is of the opinion that the request
made by the petitioner, subject to verification of his identity, seems to be
reasonable.
8. Accordingly, it is directed that the allegedly objectionable tweets as
stated in the Blocking Order be temporarily blocked/suspended, subject to
the adjudication to be undertaken by the Committee.
9. Subject to the allegedly objectional tweets being temporarily
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:07.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
20:06:30 W.P.(C) 4070/2026 Page 3 of 4 KUMAR KAURAV
blocked/suspended by X, let the petitioner‟s X account be restored
immediately.
10. Since the present directions are being passed being mindful of the
review mechanism under Rule 14 of the Rules of 2009, the concerned
Committee shall consider all submissions made by the petitioner, including
inter alia, whether the allegedly objectional tweets are permissible under the
IT Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
11. Let the petitioner to also respond back to the GoI‟s communication
dated 27.03.2006 within a maximum period of twelve (12) hours.
12. The petitioner to appear physically before the concerned Committee
and, if necessary, shall make a request to be represented/accompanies by an
authorized representative. Such a request, if made, shall be considered by
the concerned Committee keeping in mind the directions passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in Tanul Thakur v. Union of India & Ors. 1
13. If the petitioner‟s grievance is not fully mitigated, he shall be at
liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law.
14. The 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.
15. With the aforesaid directions, the petition, along with pending
application, stands disposed of.
16. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open.
(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
APRIL 6, 2026/aks.
W.P.(C) 13037/2019, Order dt. 11.05.2022.
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed
Signing Date:07.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
20:06:30 W.P.(C) 4070/2026 Page 4 of 4 KUMAR KAURAV
