The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the Union government after the Aam Aadmi Party filed a plea. It challenges the blocking and suspension of its Gujarat unit’s Instagram handle @aapgujarat and its official Facebook page.
The Supreme Court sent notice to the Union government in a plea filed by the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) challenging the blocking and suspension of its Gujarat unit’s Instagram handle, “@aapgujarat”, and its Facebook page.
A Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe listed the matter alongside a pending public interest litigation (PIL) moved by the Software Freedom Law Center, India (SFLC), which contests the blocking of social media accounts and online content without prior notice to users.
When AAP appeared through Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, he argued that Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, cannot be invoked as an enabling provision to block online content or suspend accounts.
In his submission, the clause is meant only to deal with the withdrawal of “safe harbour” protection for intermediaries, and not to create independent authority for blocking.
Farasat further submitted that although the issues raised in the SFLC petition overlap with AAP’s challenge, they are not identical. Highlighting the urgency, he told the Court that the party’s social media presence had already been removed.
He submitted,
“Today my portal is gone and I may need to post something in the interim,”
Representing the Union, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said formal issuance of notice may not be necessary and requested that a copy of the petition be served directly to him.
The petition questions the legal basis of blocking directions reportedly issued to Meta for suspending AAP Gujarat’s Instagram and Facebook accounts. It seeks a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) is not an independent statutory basis permitting authorities to order blocking of information online.
The plea also invokes the scheme of Section 79 of the IT Act, which provides intermediaries immunity from liability for third-party content hosted on their platforms.
Under Section 79(3)(b), such protection is said not to apply if the intermediary, upon receiving actual knowledge through a court order or a government notification regarding unlawful content, fails to remove or disable access to it expeditiously.
AAP’s argument is that Section 79(3)(b) cannot be expanded into a substantive blocking mechanism. It contrasts this with Section 69A of the IT Act, which specifically authorises the government to block online information only on limited grounds, including sovereignty, public order, and national security.
The petition seeks quashing of the alleged blocking directions issued by law enforcement authorities and requests the Court to call for the records pertaining to those directions. It also asks the Court to declare the blocking of the “@aapgujarat” accounts as arbitrary, unconstitutional, and violative of free speech protections under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
In addition, AAP seeks guidelines and procedural safeguards for blocking or suspending the official social media accounts of registered political parties urging the Court to require prior notice, an opportunity of hearing, and written reasons, consistent with Article 19(2) and Section 69A of the IT Act.
Article 19(1)(a) gives every citizen the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. This means every person in India has the right to speak freely, express their opinions, share information, write, publish, and communicate their thoughts.
However, this right is not absolute.
Article 19(2) allows the State to place reasonable restrictions on this freedom. These restrictions can be made only in specific situations, such as to protect the security of the State, public order, decency, morality, sovereignty and integrity of India, friendly relations with foreign States, contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to an offence.
Case Title: Aam Aadmi Party v. Union of India