The Supreme Court Today (March 3) asked the Central Government to respond to a plea challenging the removal of social media posts without informing the user. “If there is an identifiable person, then notice should be issued,” the Court stated.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India today asked the Central Government to respond to a plea about social media posts being removed without informing or hearing the person who posted them.
A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih stated that if a post has a known author, that person should be given a chance to be heard before the post is taken down.
“Prima facie, we both feel that if there is an identifiable person then notice should be issued,”
-the Bench said.
Following this, the Court issued a notice to the Central Government on a plea by the Software Freedom Law Centre.
The petition mentioned that social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter) often remove posts when the government directs them to do so, but the account owner is not informed.
The petition, filed by the Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC), argues that before any content is removed from social media platforms like ‘X’ (formerly Twitter), the person who originally posted it must be given a prior notice and an opportunity to respond.
The plea highlights that failing to inform the content creator before taking down a post violates fundamental principles of fairness and natural justice.
Senior Counsel Indira Jaising, who represented the petitioner, argued that while the government has the power to remove content, it must notify the person who posted it.
Not doing so goes against the basic principles of natural justice.
She further explained that, under current law, a notice is either sent to the intermediary (such as X) or to the individual who posted the content.
However, because of the use of the word “or” in the rule, only the intermediary receives the notice.
“Because of this only the intermediary is served with the notice. This is happening because of the word ‘or’. Then rule further says such a notice is confidential and it is a nail in the coffin. I am not disputing the power to take it down but the person who put it out must be heard. The challenge is under Article 19(1)(a),”
-she said.
The Bench acknowledged this concern and remarked,
“If a person is identifiable, then he has to be given notice and if not then the intermediary. It can be read in that manner also.”
Agreeing with this, Jaising said,
“If it is read in this manner, then State will be under mandate to issue notice to identifiable person.”
She also pointed out that Supreme Court Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde’s Twitter account was suspended for years without any notice or hearing.
“Yes, a senior lawyer of this court, Mr Sanjay Hegde’s X account was taken down. No notice and for years it was not made online. I am not giving personal examples.. but this is in public domain,”
-Jaising highlighted.
After hearing these arguments, the Supreme Court sought the Central Government’s response on the issue.
The Supreme Court officially sent a notice to the Central Government regarding a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that challenges specific provisions of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
The apex court has directed the Central Government to provide its response within six weeks regarding the matter.
CASE TITLE:
Software Freedom Law Centre, India v. Union of India.
[W.P.(C) No. 161/2025; Diary No. 7547/2025].
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
