New Delhi, May 29: The Delhi High Court on Friday declined to grant interim relief for the immediate restoration of the blocked X (formerly Twitter) account of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP), while directing the statutory Review Committee to examine the challenge raised against the blocking action and place its decision on record.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the order while hearing a petition filed by CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke challenging the Centre's decision to block the party's X account on national security grounds.

The Court issued notice to the Union Government and X and granted four weeks to the Centre to file a comprehensive affidavit in response to the petition.

Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for Dipke, sought immediate restoration of the account and urged the Court to call for the blocking order. He argued that although the petitioner may not have access to the order, the Court itself should be apprised of the reasons underlying the blocking action.

Sibal submitted that in several earlier cases concerning the blocking of social media accounts, courts had adopted a balanced approach by allowing specific allegedly offending posts to remain blocked while restoring access to the account itself. He contended that a similar arrangement could be considered in the present case.

The Court, however, did not pass any interim order restoring the account.

During the hearing, Sibal argued that if any particular posts were considered objectionable, those posts could continue to remain blocked while the account itself was restored. He further submitted that similar relief had been granted in several previous cases and questioned why litigants were repeatedly being required to undergo the same process.

The Bench observed that the legal position relating to such issues is still evolving and that the submissions raised by the petitioner would require consideration after hearing the government's stand. The Court noted that the matter involved wider ramifications and would have to be examined holistically.

Justice Kaurav also observed that the present case appeared to be somewhat different from certain earlier matters cited by the petitioner. According to the Court, the concerns raised by the authorities appeared to relate to the overall activity associated with the account rather than merely a few individual posts.

When Sibal pressed for production of the blocking order, the Court noted that neither the petitioner nor the Court had seen the order. However, the Bench stated that it was not inclined to examine the blocking order at this stage and would first hear the Union Government. The Court clarified that if required at a later stage, it could direct the authorities to place the entire record before it.

The Court further observed that in some previous cases it had not directed intermediaries to furnish blocking orders to affected users. It added that if an intermediary voluntarily chose to disclose such material, that would stand on a different footing.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union Government, opposed the petitioner's submissions and remarked that the intermediary appeared to be assisting the petitioner.

The Court's attention was also drawn to the review mechanism provided under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. Taking note of the statutory framework, the Bench directed that the Review Committee examine all aspects raised by the petitioner and place its decision on record.

"The submissions will have to be examined after the Union of India files a comprehensive affidavit," the Court observed while dictating the order.

The Court also noted the existence of the review mechanism under the blocking rules and directed that the Review Committee consider the issues raised by the petitioner.

During the proceedings, Sibal informed the Court that Dipke is presently outside India and sought permission for him to participate in the Review Committee proceedings through video conferencing and through an authorised representative. The Court observed that such a request may be made before the Review Committee, which shall consider the issue in accordance with the law.

Accordingly, while issuing notice in the matter, the High Court refused to grant interim relief for the immediate restoration of the blocked X account and directed that the petitioner's grievances be considered by the Review Committee in the first instance. (ANI)