Delhi HC asks Centre to review Abhijeet Dipke's plea to restore ‘slightly offensive’ Cockroach Janta Party's X account

The Delhi High Court on Friday declined to immediately direct the restoration of the Cockroach Janta Party's X account and issued a notice on the plea by its founder Abhijeet Dipke.

According to Live Law, the court directed the review committee of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTY) to examine Dipke's case, granting him liberty to appear virtually.

It also observed that the content on the page appeared “slightly offensive”.

Solicitor General of India (SGI) Tushar Mehta appeared for the Centre along with Additional Solicitor General of India (ASG) Chetan Sharma. Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal appeared for the viral party.

What did the Delhi HC say?

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, while issuing notice, said, “Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal (appearing for the petitioner) submits that without hearing the petitioner, the blocking order cannot be passed.”

“The court finds that the submissions made by the parties will be examined after a counter affidavit is filed. Let the same be filed in four weeks,” he added.

Justice Kaurav drew attention to Rule 14 of IT Rules, which provides for a review committee to meet once every two months and record its findings. “And if it is of opinion, it may set aside directions and order unblocking…”

“Rule 14 clearly empowers the review committee to examine all aspects which are sought to be put forth by the petitioner. If the committee is satisfied that directions are to be set aside, an unblocking order can be passed,” he said while directing that before the next date of hearing, the review committee should examine all those aspects.

"Decision be taken on record. Petitioner is granted liberty to appear virtually. Let the request for authorisizing someone be seen by the review committee," he ordered.

What did Dipke's counsel say?

“This is pure satire. If they have something, I am to be kept in the dark, but the court should not be kept in the dark,” Sibal submitted. saying that the party had approached the court immediately.

He also submitted that if there are contentious tweets, the same can remain blocked.

Sibal submitted that in several earlier cases involving similar blocking actions, courts had adopted a balanced approach by permitting specific allegedly offending posts to remain blocked while restoring access to the account itself. He argued that a similar approach could be considered in the present case.

"This is the sixth case. Till when will it go on?" Sibal said.

The submissions were opposed by Mehta and Sharma.

The court observed that the petition raised issues that would require detailed examination after the government places its stand on record.

The Bench noted that the legal framework governing such disputes is still evolving and that the wider implications of the issues involved necessitated a comprehensive consideration of the matter.

The court also expressed reservations about examining the blocking order at the present stage. It observed that neither the petitioner nor the court had seen the blocking order and stated that if required at a later stage, appropriate directions could be issued for the production of the complete record.

At the same time, the Bench noted that in previous cases it had not directed intermediaries to furnish blocking orders to users. It added that if an intermediary voluntarily chose to disclose such information, that would be a separate matter.

The court further observed that the present case appeared to stand on somewhat different footing from some earlier matters cited by the petitioner, indicating that the concerns raised by the authorities appeared to relate to the overall activity of the account rather than merely individual posts.

(With agency inputs)