Delhi High Court Directs MeiTY's Review Committee To Examine Abhijeet Dipke's Plea For Unblocking Cockroach Janta Party's X Account

The Delhi High Court on Friday issued notice on a plea by Abhijit Dipke–founder of 'Cockroach Janata Party', challenging the blocking of the party's X account, while directing Review Committee of Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to examine Dipke's case granting him liberty to appear virtually. 

The court however did not grant any interim relief today, while orally remaking that the case had "far reaching, wider issues".

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav while issuing notice said:

"Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal (appearing for petitioner) submits that without hearing petitioner, the blocking order cannot be passed. Submissions are opposed by Mehta and ASG. The court finds that the submissions made by parties will be examined after counter affidavit is filed. Let the same be filed in four weeks". 
"The courts attention is drawn to Rule 14 of IT Rules which provides review committee to meet once in two months and records its findings. And if it is of opinion, it may set aside directions and order unblocking….Rule 14 clearly empower review committee to examine all aspects which are sought to be put forth by petitioner. If committee is satisfied that directions are to be set aside and unblocking order can be passed. It is directed that before next date of hearing, the review committee examine all those aspects. Decision be taken on record. Petitioner is granted liberty to appear virtually. Let the request for authorisizing someone can be seen by review committee"

SGI Tushar Mehta appeared for Centre along with ASG Chetan Sharma. Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal appeared for the party.

During the hearing the court asked SGI Tushar Mehta to accept notice as it has passed similar orders.

Meanwhile Sibal submitted, " In Prateek case, where blocking order was placed, i dont have anything. I am saying this is pure satire. If they have something, i am to be kept in the dark but court should not be kept in the dark". 

Sibal submitted that the party had approached the court immediately. The court said that it was also issuing notice immediately. Meanwhile Sibal submitted that if there are contentious tweets the same can remain blocked.  He said that in the case which had come before the high court, the accounts had been directed to be unblocked. 

"This is sixth case. Till when will it go on?" Sibal emphasized. To this the court said that law regarding such actions is still in nascent stage.

"Let them take notice and come back. I can direct them to place the material in whatever form. There is nothing in the communication as of now. Blocking order is not on record today. There is only communication. Neither you nor I have seen blocking order," the court said. 

Referring to IT Rules the court said that in some cases it had never directed intermediary to supply copy of blocking order.

"If they want to supply they do it themselves. Review is a mechanism. I can at best direct them to place this matter in the meantime to review committee," the court added. 

Meanwhile Sibal says in other cases, there have been directions that if tweets are there it can be blocked, but account is restored. The court however orally said that  the "entire activity per se is offending that is why this case is slightly different". 

It orally said that the material which petitioner intends to know can be considered to be given to him, provided the review committee is fine with it.

Sibal meawhile said, "X (intermediary) is here. If they have blocking order. Confidentiality cant be from person you are directing or someone who is affected. Confidentiality is for example in arbitration. That means others. Intermediary cannot keep it confidential from court". 

The court however said that it was not saying no but the matter had to be considered holistically.

"There are far reaching, wider issues. Let them take notice. In meantime i can ask review committee if you are willing to," the court added. 

Sibal meanwhile said that the petitioner can appear through VC before the review committee as he was not in country at moment. Sibal added that the petitioner had received death threats and he can authorise someone to appear in person. 

'Cockroach Janata Party' is a satirical social media movement which emerged in response to an oral comment made by the CJI during a hearing, where he equated unemployed youth attacking systems under the garb of online activism as 'cockroaches'. The CJI later clarified that he was referring to persons with fake degrees. The social media handles of 'Cockroach Janata Party', which amassed millions of followers within a matter of days, were later suspended.