Delhi HC Orders Review Panel to Examine Block on Cockroach Janta Party Founder’s X Account

The Delhi High Court on Friday directed the Review Committee constituted under the Information Technology (Blocking Rules) to examine the challenge filed by Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) founder Abhijeet Dipke against the blocking of the party's X account and place its decision on record.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav also issued notice to the Union Government and X on Dipke's petition challenging the blocking action, which was reportedly taken on national security grounds.

The Court granted four weeks to the Centre to file a comprehensive affidavit in response to the petition.

However, the Court did not pass any interim order directing restoration of the blocked account and deferred consideration of the petitioner's request for immediate relief.

Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for Dipke, urged the Court to direct restoration of the account pending adjudication of the case.

Can X Account Blocking Orders Be Challenged Without Providing Affected Parties a Hearing?

He also sought a direction requiring the intermediary to place the blocking order on record, arguing that such an order could not have been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected party.

Sibal submitted that in several earlier cases involving similar blocking actions, courts had adopted a balanced approach by permitting specific allegedly offending posts to remain blocked while restoring access to the account itself.

He argued that a similar approach could be considered in the present case.

The submissions were opposed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and the Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union Government.

During the hearing, the Court observed that the petition raised issues that would require detailed examination after the government places its stand on record.

The Bench noted that the legal framework governing such disputes is still evolving and that the wider implications of the issues involved necessitated a comprehensive consideration of the matter.

The Court also expressed reservations about examining the blocking order at the present stage. It observed that neither the petitioner nor the Court had seen the blocking order and stated that if required at a later stage, appropriate directions could be issued for the production of the complete record.

At the same time, the Bench noted that in previous cases it had not directed intermediaries to furnish blocking orders to users. It added that if an intermediary voluntarily chose to disclose such information, that would be a separate matter.

The Court further observed that the present case appeared to stand on a somewhat different footing from some earlier matters cited by the petitioner, indicating that the concerns raised by the authorities appeared to relate to the overall activity of the account rather than merely individual posts.

Referring to the statutory framework, the Court noted the existence of a review mechanism under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access to Information by Public) Rules, 2009.

Taking note of this mechanism, the Bench directed the Review Committee to examine all issues raised by the petitioner and place its decision on record.

During the proceedings, Solicitor General Mehta also raised concerns regarding the conduct of X, submitting that the intermediary appeared to be assisting the petitioner.

Sibal, meanwhile, informed the Court that Dipke is presently outside India and requested that he be permitted to participate in the proceedings before the Review Committee through video conferencing and through an authorised representative.

The Court observed that such a request may be made before the Review Committee, which would consider the issue in accordance with the law.

(With inputs from ANI)