The Delhi High Court has ordered the immediate restoration of satirical X accounts “Dr. Nimo Yadav” and “Nehr Who,” blocked under Section 69A of the IT Act on MeitY’s orders. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav held that only specific allegedly objectionable tweets may remain temporarily withheld, while the accounts must be revived, and directed the users to appear before MeitY’s Review Committee.
On Monday, April 6, 2026, the Delhi High Court ordered the restoration of two X (formerly Twitter) accounts—“Dr. Nimo Yadav” and “Nehr Who”—which had been blocked on March 19, 2026, under directions issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY).
The matter was heard by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav who passed the order when he was hearing an appeal filed by Prateek Sharma, the account holder of “Dr. Nimo Yadav.” A similar order was issued in the petition filed by Kumar Nayan, who operates the “Nehr Who” account.
Both accounts were among 12 blocked under government directives issued under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000. The affected accounts reportedly included political activists, satirical pages, and independent content creators.
The Court directed that both accounts be restored immediately, while specific tweets identified as objectionable in the blocking order would remain temporarily withheld. It also directed the petitioners to appear before MeitY’s Review Committee, which will assess whether the flagged content was lawfully blocked.
As reported by Bar and Bench, the Court observed, “The alleged objectionable tweets stated in the blocking order be put under the temporary blocking category. The petitioner’s account be restored. The Government of India is at liberty to monitor material and if further objectionable material is posted, it is at liberty to take recourse as per law.”
The ruling followed a detailed exchange between advocate Vrinda Grover, appearing for the petitioners, and Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, representing the Union government. Grover argued that the petitioner approached the High Court on March 25 after receiving a notification from X Corp that his account had been blocked. She pointed out that no prior communication was provided before the blocking and that the government’s March 18 order was shared only after the petition was filed.
She contended that the action fell outside the scope of Section 69A and stated: “What is the legal scheme? The legal scheme cannot be that you violate my fundamental rights, when I move a constitutional court then in order to avoid judicial scrutiny you quickly send me...that can never be the scheme in this country...Reasons have to be in the order, and blocking is of information. The blocking order passed by Respondent No.1 (UOI) is to withhold my entire account, not information...This is a totally illegal arbitrary order. To ask me now, after you have blocked my account (not url) on March 19, you say now that ' you come to the Review Committee',” Grover said, as reported by LiveLaw.
In response, ASG Sharma maintained that emails had been sent to the petitioner regarding appearance before the Review Committee. “Let her appear today, because we sent another email on 4th (April)...that exercise is necessary...there are three things, her March 19 communication states that till date no government authority has contacted me issued notice or provided opportunity to be heard, so this basically on PNJ (principles of natural justice). Rule 14 is on PNJ,” he argued.
The Centre informed the Court that the accounts were blocked under a March 18 order citing “defamatory posts,” including AI-manipulated content targeting the government and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which it said could affect public order and internal security.
While complying with the order, X Corp objected to it before MeitY, calling the action “disproportionate.” It argued that most of the content did not meet the threshold under Section 69A and that users were neither given a hearing nor properly identified before the blocking.
During the hearing, X’s counsel opposed the deletion of entire accounts, suggesting that only specific tweets be temporarily withheld. “I can hand over screenshots of these tweets, and my Lord can see if it actually needs to be deleted. We can, in the interim, block them (individual tweets/ X posts),” the counsel submitted.
In its interim order, the Delhi High Court restored the accounts while allowing the flagged posts to remain blocked. The petitioners also argued that the blocking had financial and professional consequences, with Sharma stating that the account served as his source of livelihood.
Suggested Reading:
Subscribe to our channels on YouTube and WhatsApp
Download our app on Play Store