Elon Musk’s X has told the Delhi High Court that MeitY’s March 19, 2026 order blocking 12 India-based accounts critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the BJP is disproportionate and non-compliant with Section 69A of the IT Act. The platform argues entire-account bans violate the “least intrusive measure” standard, as activists warn of expanding, opaque censorship powers.
The Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) issued an order to block several accounts of users on X on March 19, 2026. MeitY cited Section 69A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, stating that the accounts displayed controversial and defamatory posts targeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The order specifically targeted accounts critical of the Union Government, political activists, anonymous satirists, and independent content creators mocking the BJP and its leadership.
Under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, the government has the power to block public access to any online information. This action is typically taken to protect the sovereignty, integrity, and defense of India, or to maintain public order.
As a result, 12 accounts were withheld in India, and a generic message displayed on them. The message stated that the account(s) have been withheld in response to a legal demand. These blocks happened without any prior warning, leaving users with no chance to defend themselves before losing their audience. Digital rights groups have raised concerns about the strict confidentiality of MeitY's blocking orders. Because the exact legal reasons are kept secret, it is extremely difficult for users to challenge the censorship in court.
The confirmed accounts that have been withheld in India include @Nehr_who, a parody handle, @DrNimoYadav, a political satire account, @indian_armada, a satire account, @DuckKiBaat, a parody account, @ActivistSandeep, Journalist and activist Sandeep Singh’s account, @mrjethwani, a satirical account by RJ Manish and @Doc_RGM, account owned by Dr. Ranjan, a political satirist targeting governmental policies.
However, a user named Prateek Sharma, who ran the parody account @DrNimoYadav, filed a petition in the Delhi High Court challenging the validity of his account’s suspension. A bench led by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav heard the matter. On March 19, 2026, Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) submitted its affidavit to the Delhi High Court regarding the matter. It mentioned that the government’s decision was disproportionate, not in compliance with the law and didn’t meet the requirements under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000.
X did block access to the accounts as per the order, but it also criticised the order, stating that blocking entire accounts rather than specific posts was an overly authoritative step. It also did not meet the legal standard of adopting the least intrusive measure, the statement added. The Court will hear the matter further in the coming weeks.
Legal experts such as the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) are raising alarms over a growing trend by the government to decentralize the blocking powers. Reports indicate a shift toward allowing other ministries, state police, or various local authorities to issue takedown orders directly. This move would completely bypass the centralized procedural safeguards originally established under Section 69A, making it easier to issue blocking orders across the country.
(Rh/GP)
Suggested Reading:
Subscribe to our channels on YouTube and WhatsApp
Download our app on Play Store