Social media platform X recently asked for a review of the Central government’s order of March 18, 2026 to block 12 accounts, the Delhi High Court has been told..X wrote to the Central government on March 19, stating that the government’s blocking order failed to comply with Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) and that the evidence shared to block the accounts did not show violation of the grounds provided under the law.Section 69A empowers the Central government to block public access to online information if it considers such action necessary in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, national security or defence, public order, maintaining friendly relations with foreign states, or for preventing the incitement of offences. .In the March 19 communication to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY), the American tech giant said that the vast majority of the content in each of the X accounts in question does not fall within the grounds specified under Section 69A.It added that the blocking order "will excessively and disproportionately restrict the account holder's rights" because the account holders will be unable to use X in India permanently, without being granted an opportunity of hearing.“Thus account level blocking, as opposed to Post level blocking, is disproportionate and does not constitute the "least intrusive measure" as mandated under law,” X said. .The company’s letter to the MEITY forms part of a set of documents X has filed in the Court after Prateek Sharma, operator of X account under the name Dr Nimo Yadav, moved the Court seeking access to the blocking order. The documents filed by X have been shared with Sharma and the Court and seen by Bar & Bench. .As reported on Monday, the government had ordered the blocking of the Dr Nimo Yadav account for “spreading false narratives involving the Prime Minister” and “portraying him in bad taste”. The blocking order added that the account contains defamatory posts in which photographs, videos and AI-manipulated content were used to create controversial posts questioning the government and defaming Prime Minister Narendra Modi.In its letter, X said that it believed that no opportunity of hearing had been granted to any of the account holders. “Additionally, X verily believes that no opportunity of hearing has been granted to any of the account holders whose accounts have been ordered to be blocked by the Blocking Order. As X has previously brought to the attention of the Hon'ble Committee, in terms of Rule 8(1) of the Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking of Access to Information by Public) Rules 2009 ("Blocking Rules) reasonable efforts are to be made for identifying the person whose content is ordered to be blocked. The Blocking Order does not demonstrate that any such effort has been made,” X said.Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav heard the matter on March 30 and is now scheduled to hear the case again next week. .Advocates Vrinda Grover, Nakul Gandhi, Apar Gupta and Soutik Banerjee appeared for Sharma. Advocate Ankit Parhar appeared for Twitter. The Central government was represented through Advocate Avshreya Rudy.
