Orders to block accounts ‘excessively and disproportionately restrict the account holder’s rights’, X told Govt
Social media intermediary files its communication with MeitY before Delhi High Court; on March 18, MeitY directed X to block 12 accounts ‘within one hour of’ receiving its order, the communications show
Among the accounts flagged by MeitY was one called ‘@DrNimoYadav’, and 10 posts made by that account. (File photo) X Corp has told the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) that orders to block accounts on the platform “excessively and disproportionately restrict the account holder’s rights, especially as the account holder will be unable to use X in India permanently”.
Communications between X Corp and MeitY, which were filed by X before the Delhi High Court on March 30, show that MeitY convened a virtual meeting with authorised representatives of the social media intermediary on March 13 to examine blocking requests made by various nodal officers under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access to Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
With MeitY providing a list of at least 16 accounts on which posts were purportedly made that warranted blocking under Section 69A of the IT Act, the meeting was also convened to hear the user who had hosted the content and the intermediary.
Following the meeting, in another communication on March 18, MeitY had directed X to block 12 accounts “within one hour of” receiving its order.
While X complied with the order, withholding access to all 12 accounts, it wrote to MeitY on March 19 saying that the “vast majority of the content in each of these X accounts does not appear to fall within the grounds specified under section 69A”, and thus the blocking orders are “not proportionate”.
“This account-level blocking, as opposed to post-level blocking, is disproportionate and does not constitute the “least intrusive measure” as mandated under law,” X said, and requested that “appropriate orders” be passed for unblocking the 12 accounts.
The company said it “verily believes” that “no opportunity of hearing has been granted” to any of the 12 account holders, and that the evidence shared with respect to these accounts “does not violate the grounds of section 69A [of the IT Act]”.
Among the accounts flagged by MeitY was one called ‘@DrNimoYadav’, and 10 posts made by that account. Asking for the blocking, MeitY had reasoned that the account “contains defamatory posts” wherein “photographs/ videos/ AI manipulated contents of the Prime Minister have been used to create controversial posts questioning the Government and defaming the PM”.
The account also contains URLs which are “spreading false narratives involving Prime Minister, accusing him of being incompetent as also portraying him in bad taste”, MeitY said, adding that spreading such content “without any substance is demeaning” and may affect the “public order issues leading to internal security threats to the state”.
The account, run by one Prateek Sharma, moved the Delhi High Court on March 24, challenging the blocking order and seeking the court’s directions to the Centre and X Corp to stop withholding or restricting the account within India.
The petition also sought the court’s order to ensure that any censorship on social media is carried out strictly as per the IT Act and its Rules. It is in this petition that X Corp has filed the chain of communication relating to the restricting of the account.
Share
