New Delhi: The Delhi High Court’s order restoring the parody X account “Dr Nimo Yadav” validates the government’s content-blocking framework as the tweets identified as objectionable remain suspended, senior officials at the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) said.
The handle, operated by Prateek Sharma, described the April 6 order as a personal legal victory. In a post on X on Wednesday, he said he “wasn’t fighting only for myself” but for others affected by blocking orders.
But, ministry officials said that while the account had been unblocked, the Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC) would examine the legality of specific content under the IT Act and Rules.
The petitioner had been directed to appear before the committee and participate in the review process.
A ministry official said on condition of anonymity that the court “validated the process under which government blocks access to unlawful digital content”.
The official added that the court has made it clear that the “objectionable tweets will remain blocked/suspended pending adjudication by the Inter-Ministerial Committee (IMC)”.
The official said relief granted by the high court was limited.
“The court has simply granted a relief of unblocking of the account,” the official said.
Adding, “The court has left the matter ultimately to the IMC to examine the legality of content under the IT Act and Rules. The IMC will decide the future course of action after hearing the petitioner.”
The official also said, “It is clear that objectionable and unlawful content can’t be allowed on social media—that’s not freedom of speech.”
The blocking order
The case stems from an 18 March order in which MeitY directed the withholding of 12 X accounts in India under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
One of those accounts was “@DrNimoYadav,” a satirical handle operated by Prateek Sharma, with approximately 13.56 lakh followers.
The government’s blocking order stated that the account contained defamatory posts involving photographs, videos and AI-manipulated content used to create controversial posts questioning the government and defaming the Prime Minister. It added that such content could affect public order and lead to internal security concerns.
The order explicitly cited AI-manipulated content as a ground, notable as the government had already notified rules on synthetic and AI-generated content under the IT Amendment Rules 2026, which came into force on 20 February, 2026.
Section 69A blocking orders are confidential by default. Sharma came to know of the order only when X notified him that his account had been withheld, without providing reasons. He then approached the Delhi HC seeking production of the order and restoration of his account.
What high court said
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav heard the matter and passed an order that did not stay or strike down the blocking directive. The court did not rule on the legality of the content itself.
Instead, it directed that the specific tweets identified in the blocking order remain under temporary suspension, while restoring the broader account on the condition that the petitioner delete or withhold the flagged posts and appear before the IMC.
The court said: “The alleged objectionable tweets stated in the blocking order be put under 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.”
It further directed that the IMC consider all submissions by the petitioner, including whether the flagged content was permissible under the IT Act and the Rules.
The petitioner was asked to appear before the committee in person and respond to the government’s identity verification communication within 12 hours.
Government’s position in court
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Union of India, urged the bench to allow the statutory process to run its course.
“It needs to be thrashed out. You make certain disparaging remarks against the head of the country, foreign relations, so on. The damage has been done. Everybody will now ride piggyback on this,” he argued.
The government maintained it had acted in accordance with the IT Act and the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, and that the Review Committee was the appropriate forum for the petitioner to raise his grievances.
The case is part of a wider enforcement trend. The crackdown has extended to Facebook, with Meta blocking accounts of news outlets and satirists, including ‘Molitics’ and ‘National Dastak’, under government orders.
This is an updated version of the report
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)
Also Read: MeitY secretary says every social media user posting on current affairs can come under I&B oversight