Citing 'Far Reaching, Wider Issues,' Delhi HC Offers No Interim Relief to Cockroach Janata Party Over X Block
New Delhi: The Delhi high court refused to give any interim relief to Abhijeet Dipke's plea against the blocking of his brand's account on the social media platform X.
Dipke's Cockroach Janata Party had amassed millions of followers when its X account was withheld on May 21, after the Intelligence Bureau (IB) reportedly raised “national security concerns”.
The Cockroach Janata Party was a reaction to the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant's comment on May 15, in which he likened a section of youngsters “cockroaches”and “parasites” during a hearing while referring to a lawyer’s social media account.
Today (May 29), the Delhi high court issued notice on Dipke's plea and directed the Review Committee of Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to examine the case.
It allowed Dipke, who is based in the US, the liberty to appear virtually.
LiveLaw reported that Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav orally remarked that the case had "far reaching, wider issues".
"I am saying this is pure satire. If they have something, I am to be kept in the dark but court should not be kept in the dark," Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, who appeared for Dipke, said.
The court took note of Rule 14 of the IT Rules on the review committee.
"The courts attention is drawn to Rule 14 of IT Rules which provides review committee to meet once in two months and records its findings. And if it is of opinion, it may set aside directions and order unblocking…Rule 14 clearly empower review committee to examine all aspects which are sought to be put forth by petitioner. If committee is satisfied that directions are to be set aside and unblocking order can be passed. It is directed that before next date of hearing, the review committee examine all those aspects. Decision be taken on record. Petitioner is granted liberty to appear virtually. Let the request for authorisizing someone can be seen by review committee," it said, according to LiveLaw.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma appeared for the Union government.
Sibal, for Dipke, also noted that contentious tweets could well remain blocked but that the account must be restored. "This is sixth case. Till when will it go on?" Sibal asked.
On this, the court noted later that because "entire activity per se is offending that is why this case is slightly different".
LiveLaw reported that the court also said that the blocking order was not seen by the court either. "Let them take notice and come back. I can direct them to place the material in whatever form. There is nothing in the communication as of now. Blocking order is not on record today. There is only communication. Neither you nor I have seen blocking order," the court said.
On the copy of the blocking order, the court appeared to admit to its limited role. "If they want to supply they do it themselves. Review is a mechanism. I can at best direct them to place this matter in the meantime to review committee," the court added.
"Intermediary cannot keep it confidential from court," the court said on the blocking order.
The court added that the matter had to be considered holistically.
Earlier this year, the MeitY notified draft amendments to existing IT Rules, proposing significant changes to an already restrictive atmosphere and wanting to act on social media posts, not just websites.
The Wire has reported on the User Manual for Sahyog Portal (IT intermediaries) that lays down the union government’s takedown mechanism for content online to note that it does not detail any independent review process before an item is ordered to be taken down online.
This article went live on May twenty-ninth, two thousand twenty six, at thirty-six minutes past one in the afternoon.The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
