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
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”.
Story continues below this ad
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.
Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court
Professional Profile
Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express.
Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare).
Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others.
She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020.
With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram
Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025)
Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles:
High-Profile Case Coverage
She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy.
Signature Style
Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system.
X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More
