Delhi HC Examines MeitY Order Blocking X Account Over Defamatory Posts on PM Modi

<h2>Overview</h2> <p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="X Corp, formerly Twitter, is a global social media platform that allows users to post short messages called ‘tweets’. (GS2: Polity – role of digital platforms in public discourse)">X Corp</span> informed the <span class="key-term" data-definition="The Delhi High Court is the principal civil court of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, handling constitutional and civil matters. (GS2: Polity – judicial institutions)">Delhi High Court</span> that a parody account of Dr. Nimo Yadav was blocked on the directive of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) is the central government body responsible for policy, regulation and promotion of the IT sector in India. (GS2: Polity – ministries and their functions)">MeitY</span>. The block was issued under <span class="key-term" data-definition="Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 empowers the government to block public access to any information that threatens sovereignty, security, or public order. (GS2: Polity – legal provisions on internet governance)">Section 69A</span> of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="The Information Technology Act, 2000 provides the legal framework for electronic governance and cyber‑crimes in India. (GS2: Polity – cyber law)">IT Act</span> after the account posted allegedly defamatory material about Prime Minister Narendra Modi.</p> <h2>Key Developments</h2> <ul> <li>The affidavit submitted by X Corp states that the account used manipulated photos, videos and AI‑generated content to portray the Prime Minister in a "bad taste" and question his competence.</li> <li>MeitY invoked <span class="key-term" data-definition="Rule 6 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules requires intermediaries to block content on receipt of a government order. (GS2: Polity – regulatory framework for intermediaries)">Rule 6</span> of the IT Rules to block the account, citing potential threats to public order and internal security.</li> <li>X Corp objected, arguing that blocking the entire account is disproportionate and violates the "least intrusive" principle; it suggested post‑level blocking instead.</li> <li>The petition was filed by <strong>Prateek Sharma</strong>, the operator of the account, and is being heard by Justice <strong>Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav</strong>.</li> <li>Advocates representing the petitioner, X Corp and MeitY appeared, and the next hearing is scheduled for the following week.</li> </ul> <h2>Important Facts</h2> <p>The affidavit notes that MeitY attempted to identify and contact the account holder but could not obtain verified contact details. X Corp’s objection letter claims that the blocking order does not comply with procedural safeguards under Section 69A, such as granting a hearing to the affected user. The court will examine whether account‑level blocking, which permanently bars the user from accessing X in India, is justified when post‑level blocking could achieve the same objective.</p> <h2>UPSC Relevance</h2> <p>This case highlights the intersection of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Defamation refers to the act of harming a person's reputation by false statements. In India, it is both a civil and criminal offence. (GS2: Polity – law of defamation)">defamation</span>, digital freedom, and state regulation. Aspirants should understand the legal basis of internet censorship, the role of ministries like MeitY, and the judicial oversight exercised by High Courts. The issue also raises questions about the balance between freedom of expression (Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution) and reasonable restrictions (Article 19(2)).</p> <h2>Way Forward</h2> <p>Future deliberations may clarify whether the "least intrusive" standard under Section 69A should mandate post‑level blocking as the default. A clear procedural framework for notifying and hearing affected users could strengthen due process. For policymakers, the case underscores the need to update the IT Rules to address AI‑generated content and ensure that censorship measures are proportionate, transparent, and consistent with constitutional guarantees.</p>