The Delhi High Court issued notice on a petition filed by Abhijit Dipke, founder of the satirical social media movement ‘Cockroach Janata Party’, challenging the blocking of the party’s X (formerly Twitter) account. While declining to grant interim relief at this stage, the Court directed the Review Committee constituted under the Information Technology Rules to examine the petitioner’s grievances and place its decision on record before the next date of hearing.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that the matter raises issues of wider significance and requires consideration after the Union Government files its response. The Court granted four weeks’ time to the Centre to file its counter affidavit.

Taking note of Rule 14 of the Information Technology Rules, which provides for periodic review of blocking directions, the Court observed that the Review Committee is empowered to examine all aspects raised by the petitioner and, if satisfied, recommend setting aside the blocking directions and restoring access to the account. Accordingly, the Court directed the Committee to consider the matter before the next hearing and permitted the petitioner to participate in the proceedings virtually. The Court also left it open to the Committee to consider any request for representation through an authorised person.

Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for Dipke, argued that the blocking action had been taken without furnishing the underlying blocking order and contended that the social media movement was a form of political satire. He submitted that while specific contentious posts could be blocked, suspension of the entire account was disproportionate. He also pointed out that similar matters concerning blocked social media accounts had previously come before the High Court.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma appeared for the Union Government and opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner.

During the hearing, the Court noted that neither the petitioner nor the Court had yet been provided with the actual blocking order and that only a communication regarding the action was presently available on record. It observed that issues concerning disclosure of blocking orders, confidentiality and procedural safeguards would require holistic consideration after responses are filed.

The Court further observed that the legal framework governing blocking of social media accounts and related challenges is still evolving. While acknowledging the petitioner’s concerns regarding access to the material relied upon for blocking, the Court indicated that the issue could be considered in the context of the statutory review process.