Dipke had moved court challenging the blocking of the CJP’s X handle, which, as first reported by The Indian Express, was withheld in India on May 21 after a direction from the Centre following inputs from the Intelligence Bureau (IB) that raised “national security concerns”.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) asked X to withhold the account under Section 69(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This provision allows the central government to restrict public access to information in the interest of sovereignty, security, public order, or preventing incitement to offences.
While senior advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for Dipke, insisted that the court pass directions to unblock the account and can further direct to keep alleged objectionable tweets blocked, Justice Purushaindra Kaurav refused.
He orally remarked, “Normally, we pass interim or final orders after hearing the other side (respondents, which includes the government and the social media intermediary (ies) where the blocking action has been undertaken).”
Sibal, highlighting that this kind of blocking order has been done in at least five cases that the court has dealt with earlier, said, “Invariably, in three of these cases, specifically for X, the account has been unblocked (subsequently, after blocking)… If this is the sixth case, should a litigant be put through the same thing? The course correction has not happened… till when will it go on?”
Justice Kaurav, however, orally responded, “That we will consider… this entire law with respect to these kinds of actions is still in a nascent stage. It will take some time to develop, let us not precipitate things today… I can direct them to place whatever material they have on the record…”
Story continues below this ad
Sibal then pointed out that in past cases, the court has ordered for unblocking of entire accounts while keeping select posts, which are purportedly objectionable, blocked.
Justice Kaurav orally remarked, “In those cases and this case, there seems to be a slight difference… In those cases, some tweets were found to be offending. In this case, it seems that the entire activity per se perhaps is slightly offending. Therefore, we have to draw a distinction between a particular tweet and the entire account.”
Sibal added that they have not been supplied with the blocking order, citing confidentiality, and further submitted before the court, “Confidentiality can’t be from the person who is affected, against whom the blocking order is there… for example, arbitration is also confidential, but not from the parties involved.”
Sibal also suggested that if Dipke cannot be provided with the blocking order, the order should at least be furnished to the court for its perusal.
Story continues below this ad
While X Corp’s counsel Ankit Parahar told the court that it has the blocking order and can furnish the same to the court, the court did not enter this aspect at this stage.
Addressing Sibal, the court remarked orally, “There may be substance in your submissions, I’m not saying no, this is a far-reaching issue, let them take notice.”
Issuing notice to the Centre, through its Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing on its behalf on Friday, and to X Corp, Justice Kaurav directed them to file their counter affidavits in two weeks’ time, responding to Dipke’s plea.
In the interim, Justice Kaurav relegated Dipke to a review committee, which, as per Rule 14 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, is mandated to meet “at least once in two months and record its findings whether the directions issued under these rules” are as per provisions of section 69A of the Act.
Story continues below this ad
If the review committee is of the opinion that the directions are not in accordance with the provisions, it is also empowered to set aside such directions and issue orders for unblocking.
The court recorded, “Rule 14 clearly empowers the review committee to examine all aspects which are sought to be put forth by the petitioner. If the review committee is satisfied that the directions are required to be set aside, an appropriate order for unlocking of the said order can be passed. It is thus directed that before the next date of hearing (July 7), let the review committee examine all those aspects and the decision thereof be placed on record.”
Justice Kaurav also granted Dipke the liberty to appear virtually before the review committee, and to authorise his representative. “Let this request also be made to the review committee and… it can be examined by the review committee.”
The account remains accessible from locations outside India.
Dipke (30), who is based in Boston, United States, had told The Indian Express that he has been receiving constant threats, and is worried about his family in India. “I do not want anything to happen to my family because this is a choice I made, not them,” Dipke had told this paper earlier.
Story continues below this ad
The satirical account was launched in response to a remark by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant about those who “attack the system”.
Pulling up a lawyer who had filed a petition seeking directions to the Delhi High Court over the designation of a Senior Advocate, a status he himself was aspiring to, the CJI had said: “There are already parasites of society who attack the system, and you want to join hands with them? There are youngsters like cockroaches, who don’t get any employment or have any place in (the) profession…”
The remarks triggered an uproar, following which the CJI said it was “totally baseless” to suggest that he had criticised the youth.
