New Delhi: In a first, microblogging social media platform X (formerly Twitter) told the Delhi High Court that it supports Hindutva Watch‘s challenge against the Indian government’s blocking order. X told the High Court that Government’s decision to block the account of Hindutva Watch was ‘unjustified and disproportionate’ and it is willing to restore the account on court’s direction.
X made its submissions in a reply to Kashmiri journalist Raqib Hameed’s petition. In its reply, X claimed that it had objected to government’s proposal of blocking the account operated by Hamid, however, it went on to issue a blocking order which the company had to comply with.
X said that it is willing to restore the account of the court directs. It requested the court to set aside the blocking order issued by the Indian government under Section 69 of the Information and Technology (IT) Act.
Meanwhile, X also asserted that Hameed’s writ petition is not maintainable against X since the platform is merely an intermediary and not part of “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution.
Why Was ‘Hindutva Watch’ Blocked
Hindutva Watch is a United States-based research project that documents hate crimes against religious minorities in India. On X, it operated under the handle @HindutvaWatchin.
In January this year, the Indian government issued a notice to X under the IT Act asking to block several URLs, including two posts and the entire account of Hindutva Watch. The Indian Government, in the notice, said that the content flagged could could incite violence and disrupt public order.
What Happened Since Blocking Order
As the Indian government issued the order, a meeting between representatives of the government and the platform was scheduled. In the meeting, X had argued that the content and posts flagged by the Indian government were old and not inciteful, and thus, blocking the entire account was unjustified, the company told the court.
However, the government issued a blocking order on January 15, 2024, to block the entire account. The platform said that the order did not provide reasons for the same. On January 30, X filed an objection letter and had requested a hearing before the Review Committee under Rule 14.
As it received no response, it blocked the handle and Hameed was notified about the same. X said that it could not give further information to Hameed as MeitY had directed X to keep the contents of the blocking order confidential.
Get Latest News Live on Times Now along with Breaking News and Top Headlines from India and around the world.
