X tells Centre orders to block 12 accounts are ‘excessive and disproportionate’

Social media platform X has told the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology that recent orders to block profiles “excessively and disproportionately restrict the account holder’s rights”, The Indian Express reported on Wednesday.

It added that this is concerning “as the account holder will be unable to use X in India permanently”.

The remarks were made in an objection letter written by X to the ministry on March 19, urging it to review an order directing the platform to block 12 accounts, including a parody account “Dr Nimo Yadav”, Live Law reported.

X said that the blocking order issued on March 18 failed to comply with Section 69A of the 2000 Information Technology Act. The provision allows the government to send removal orders to social media platforms if the content is deemed a threat to national security, sovereignty or public order.

The objection letter was disclosed in an affidavit filed by X in the Delhi High Court on March 30.

It is part of a petition filed on March 24 by Prateek Sharma, who operates the “Dr Nimo Yadav” account, against the blocking order, Live Law reported. Sharma sought directions to the ministry and X to stop withholding the account.

The petition also asked for directions to ensure that any censorship on social media is carried out in line with the IT Act and its rules, The Indian Express reported.

In the affidavit, X said that the Dr Nimo Yadav account had been blocked on the orders of the ministry for allegedly controversial posts and defaming Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Live Law reported.

Timeline of events

The affidavit submitted by X in the court showed that the ministry had convened a virtual meeting with authorised representatives of the social media platform on March 13 to examine blocking requests made by nodal officers under the 2009 Information Technology Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access to Information by Public Rules, The Indian Express reported.

At this meeting, the ministry provided a list of at least 16 accounts on which posts were purportedly made that warranted blocking under Section 69A of the IT Act, the newspaper reported. The meeting was also convened to hear the user who had hosted the content and the intermediary.

After the meeting, the ministry on March 18 directed X to block 12 accounts “within one hour” of receiving the order.

While the platform compiled with the order and withheld the accounts, it wrote an objection letter to the ministry on March 19.

What the objection letter said

In its March 19 letter to the ministry, X said that a majority of the content in each of the 12 accounts did not “appear to fall within the grounds specified under section 69A”, adding that the blocking orders are “not proportionate”, The Indian Express reported.

“This account-level blocking, as opposed to post-level blocking, is disproportionate and does not constitute the ‘least intrusive measure’ as mandated under law,” the newspaper quoted the social media platform as saying.

It also requested that “appropriate orders” be passed for unblocking the 12 accounts.

X also noted that it “verily believes” that “no opportunity of hearing has been granted” to any of the 12 account holders, adding that the evidence shared with respect to these accounts “does not violate the grounds of section 69A [of the IT Act]”, The Indian Express reported.