Delhi High Court Orders Restoration of ‘Dr. Nimo Yadav’ X Account Amid Free Speech Concerns

The Delhi High Court, in Prateek Sharma v. Union of India, has ordered the immediate restoration of the X account “Dr. Nimo Yadav,” a parody account operated by petitioner Prateek Sharma. The Court also granted similar relief for another blocked account, “Nehr Who.”

The order was passed by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav while hearing petitions challenging the blocking of certain X accounts under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The accounts were among several blocked following directions issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).

The Court directed that the petitioner’s entire account be restored without delay. However, it clarified that specific tweets identified as objectionable in the blocking order would remain temporarily restricted until further examination.

During the hearing, the Court engaged with arguments regarding the legality of the blocking process. It emphasised the importance of following due procedure and ensuring that actions taken under Section 69A comply with legal safeguards and constitutional principles.

The Court further directed the petitioner to appear before the Review Committee constituted under the relevant rules. It instructed MeitY to justify whether the blocking of specific tweets meets the requirements of Section 69A. The Court also stressed that principles of natural justice must be strictly followed.

Senior advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the account was blocked without prior notice or communication from the government. She submitted that such action violated fundamental rights and lacked transparency.

“What is the legal scheme? The legal scheme cannot be that you violate my fundamental rights, when I move a constitutional court then in order to avoid judicial scrutiy you quickly send me…that can never be the scheme in this country…Reasons have to be in the order,” she argued.

She further contended that the blocking order targeted the entire account instead of specific content, making it arbitrary and beyond the scope of Section 69A.

On the other hand, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma submitted that communication had been sent to the petitioner, asking her to appear before the Review Committee. He relied on procedural rules to argue that the petitioner had an opportunity to be heard.

The Court also considered a related plea filed by Kumar Nayan, who operates the account “Nehr Who.” This account had been blocked on allegations of posting defamatory and AI-generated content targeting the Prime Minister.

X Corp had earlier objected to the blocking orders, calling them disproportionate. It argued that most content did not fall within the grounds specified under Section 69A and highlighted the absence of a proper hearing process.

The High Court’s interim directions underline the need for balance between state action and individual rights, particularly in matters involving online speech and platform regulation. A detailed copy of the judgement is awaited.