In the affidavit, X Corp stated that the government’s blocking order for the ‘Hindutva Watch’ account did not provide any documented reasons, despite objections raised by the intermediary. X pointed out that the Centre’s failure to disclose relevant information to the affected party undermines the right to a fair hearing, as the party cannot respond to or contest the evidence against them.
New Delhi: Today(On 30th Sep): The Centre’s action to block the entire social media account of ‘Hindutva Watch’ based on certain allegedly offensive posts has been deemed “disproportionate” and against the law, according to social media platform ‘X’ (formerly Twitter) in an affidavit submitted to the Delhi High Court.
In the affidavit, X Corp stated that the government’s blocking order for the ‘Hindutva Watch’ account did not provide any documented reasons, despite objections raised by the intermediary. X pointed out that the Centre’s failure to disclose relevant information to the affected party undermines the right to a fair hearing, as the party cannot respond to or contest the evidence against them.
The court was considering a petition filed by journalist Raqib Hameed, the founder of Hindutva Watch, who is seeking to overturn the Centre’s blocking order issued under the Information Technology Act. The order, enacted in January, led to the blocking of the petitioner’s entire X account @HindutvaWatchIn.
The petition also requests the central government to present the records related to the blocking order, including the findings of the Review Committee as per the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. Additionally, it seeks an order to restore immediate access to the petitioner’s X account.
According to its website, Hindutva Watch is a media and research initiative dedicated to documenting hate crimes and hate speech against India’s religious minorities and marginalized communities.
In its affidavit, X acknowledged that a more reasonable and less rights-infringing solution would be to remove specific posts found to be unlawful rather than blocking the entire account. X noted that the Centre has the technological capability to do so, as demonstrated in past instances. Just as a website can contain multiple pages, with only some hosting illegal content, the blocking of an entire account should not be warranted simply due to a few unlawful posts.
X contended that the complete blocking of the petitioner’s account is against the law and should be set aside by the court.
The court noted,
“It is acknowledged that the blocking of the petitioner’s entire social media account by respondent no. 1, based on certain alleged offending posts, contravenes Section 69A of the IT Act (which grants the power to issue blocking directions for public access to any information via computer resources), is disproportionate, and exceeds the limits set by Article 19(2) of the Constitution.”
Article 19(2) permits the government or legislature to impose “reasonable restrictions” on the freedom of speech and expression under various grounds.
X stated that it was prepared to restore the account as ordered by the high court but contended that the petition was not maintainable against it, as the platform is merely an intermediary and not classified as ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution.
In January 2024, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology issued a notice to X under the IT Act, proposing to block several URLs, including two posts and the entire account of Hindutva Watch, on the grounds that the content could incite violence and disrupt public order.
A meeting with the government was held on January 10, during which X, in its affidavit, argued that the posts flagged by the government were outdated and that the authorities’ assertion that the content was inciteful lacked foundation.
Nevertheless, the government subsequently issued a blocking order on January 15, 2024, to block the entire account.
The court, which last heard the petition on July 26, is scheduled to continue hearing the matter on October 3.
