The Centre’s decision to block the entire social media account of ‘Hindutva Watch’ on the basis of certain alleged offending posts is “disproportionate” and contrary to the law, social media giant ‘X’ has told the Delhi High Court.

X Corp. (formerly known as Twitter), in an affidavit filed in a case, informed the court that there are no reasons recorded in the ‘blocking order’ of the government which issued the order to block the account of ‘Hindutva Watch’ despite the objections raised by the intermediary.

“It is admitted that respondent no. 1’s (Centre) non-disclosure of relevant material to the affected party renders the right to be heard meaningless, as the affected party is unaware of the evidence against them and cannot adequately explain or rebut it,” X said.

The court was hearing a petition by journalist Raqib Hameed, founder of Hindutva Watch, seeking to quash the Centre’s blocking order issued under the Information Technology Act. The order was issued to block the petitioner’s entire X account @HindutvaWatchIn.

The plea also sought an order directing the central government to produce the relevant records for blocking the petitioner’s account, including the required orders/ findings of the Review Committee under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.

It further sought to direct social media platform ‘X’ to immediately restore access to the petitioner’s X account @HindutvaWatchIn.

Hindutva Watch, as per its website, is a media and research initiative committed to documenting hate crimes and hate speech targeting India’s religious minorities and marginalised groups. The government blocked its X account in January this year.

X, in its affidavit in response to the petition, admitted that a possible and less rights-infringing approach would involve the removal of specific posts, if found to be in violation of the law.

“It is admitted that respondent no. 1 (Centre) has the capacity and technological means to do this, as they have done so on numerous occasions in the past. Just as a website comprises multiple webpages, and the presence of unlawful content on it may not necessarily warrant takedown of the entire website; similarly, the petitioner’s account is an amalgamation of various posts.

“Even if some of these posts are deemed unlawful, it should not automatically necessitate the complete blocking of the petitioner’s account,” it said.

X said the blocking of the petitioner’s entire account is contrary to law and liable to be set aside by this court.

“It is admitted that respondent no. 1’s blocking of the petitioner’s entire social media account on the basis of certain alleged offending posts is contrary to Section 69A (power to issue directions for blocking for public access of any information through any computer resource) of the IT Act, disproportionate, and exceeds the limits prescribed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution,” it said.

Article 19(2) allows the government or legislature to impose “reasonable restrictions” on various grounds on the freedom of speech and expressions.

X submitted that it was willing to restore the account of the high court so ordered but added that the petition was not maintainable against it as the platform was merely an intermediary and not part of ‘State’ as defined 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 scheduled on January 10 and during the meeting, X in its affidavit said that it argued the posts flagged by the government were old and the authorities ground that the content was inciteful was without any basis.

However, the government then issued a blocking order on January 15, 2024, to block the entire account, it said.

The court, which had last heard the petition on July 26, is now scheduled to hear the matter on October 3.

Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by The Telegraph Online staff and has been published from a syndicated feed.