The Delhi High Court on Friday issued notice to the Union government and X on a petition moved by Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) founder Abhijeet Dipke challenging the blocking of the CJP's X account.

However, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav declined to immediately order restoration of the account. The Court said it can grant such relief only after hearing the government since the issue has far reaching consequences.

"There may be some substance in your submissions but they all need to be considered. They will be considered holistically after hearing the other side. There are far reaching issues. There are wider ramifications," the judge remarked.

The Court added that it will examine whether X can be directed to place on record the blocking order after Union of India files a comprehensive response.

"Let it be filed in four weeks from today," the Bench ordered as it listed the matter for hearing on July 6.

Meanwhile, the Court also ordered a review of the blocking order. It noted that a review committee is required to meet every two months as per relevant rules. The Court explained that the committee is empowered to examine all aspects against the blocking order.

"It is directed that the review committee will examine all these aspects. The decision be placed on record," the Bench said.

The Court noted that since Dipke is not in India, he can make a request to the review committee for appearing through video conferencing.

"The aspect can be examined by the review committee," it added.

Dipke has challenged the government’s blocking order, which cited national security reasons to ban the handle.

The petition was filed through Advocate Nakul Gandhi of NG Law Chambers.

According to a report by The Indian Express, the Central government ordered the blocking of the X account of CJP in the wake of inputs from the Intelligence Bureau (IB) that raised “national security concerns”.

The report said that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) asked X to withhold the account under Section 69 (A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The “Cockroach Janta Party” emerged earlier this month as a satirical online movement that gained traction across social media platforms, particularly among younger users.

The online movement gained massive popularity, with hundreds of thousands of followers on X and over 22 million followers on Instagram.

The movement was born out of Supreme Court proceedings held on May 15 during which the Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant expressed concerns over unemployed young lawyers drifting away from practice toward social media and RTI activism. CJI Kant said that such "youngsters like cockroaches" were becoming parasites in society.

"There are youngsters like cockroaches who are not getting employment in the profession. Some are on social media, some become RTI activists," the CJI said.

The CJI later clarified that his observations were directed at individuals entering professions through forged qualifications and fake degrees, not unemployed young Indians generally.

The collective was started by Dipke, a resident of Boston, USA. It uses political satire to comment on issues such as unemployment, institutional accountability and media freedom.

During the hearing of Dipke's plea today, Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal prayed for restoration of the account during the pendency of the plea. However, the Bench said that the Court passes such order only after hearing other side.

Sibal said that CPJ was a work of "pure satire" and that during the pendency of the challenge, some tweets can remain blocked instead of the entire account.

"Balancing has to be there. This has been done in at least 5 cases, in three of those cases at least the accounts have been unblocked," the senior counsel said.

However, the Court said it can only issue notice at this stage.

"The law on these kinds of aspect is still at nascent stage. We will issue notice. Let them come back," the Bench said.

The Court also pointed to the lack of clarity about the reasons that led to the blocking of the page.

"I have seen the page, the communication by X to you, there is nothing in that. The blocking order neither you have seen nor I have seen," the Bench said.

The Bench added that in some cases, it does not even direct the intermediary to supply the blocking order. However, Sibal insisted for an interim order to restore the account.

The Court said the cases in which such orders were passed appeared to be different.

"In those cases and in this case, there seems to be slight difference. The difference in those cases were, some tweets. They were found to be offending. In this case, what seems to be the reason is that the entire activity per se, perhaps is “slightly offending” and therefore we have to draw distinction."

The Court also said that issues like confidentiality of the blocking order can be considered during further hearings. It added that in the meantime, Dipke can appear before the review committee.

"I can ask the review committee, if you are willing you appear, in the meantime, you may appear before them," the Court said.

When Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the government, sought to make submissions, the Court said that it will hear the government before passing any orders.

"We will hear you Mr Mehta before passing any order. Today we are not interested in perusing the blocking order. If need arises, we will certainly direct for the entire record to be placed on record. Sometimes the intermediary starts reading the paper and that reading of the paper can sometimes create a difficult position."

Mehta said the intermediary appeared to be helping the petitioner.

"The intermediary seems to be helping the petitioner," he said.

Along with Senior Advocate Sibal, advocates Vrinda Grover, Nakul Gandhi, Gurdeep Singh, Siddhi Sahoo, Krishnesh Bapat, Jahnavi Sindhu, ⁠⁠Aditya Raj Patodia appeared for Dipke.

Central government was represented through SG Mehta, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, advocate Rajat Nair and CGSC Avshreya Rudy.