Madras High Court Closes Plea Challenging TN Police's Notice Blocking “X” URLs After Users Delete Posts

The bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan closed the plea after the counsel for the petitioner informed the court that the posts in question have been deleted by the users and thus nothing survived in the matter, making it infructuous.

The petition was filed by social activist P Chockalingam, challenging the notice issued by the Tamil Nadu police under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guideline and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021.

The petitioner, though not affected by the notice, submitted that the URLs that were ordered to be removed contained political criticism, commentary and opinion concerning contemporary political developments in the State. It was argued that the notice had clubbed multiple URLs of different persons under a common direction, without separately examining the contents, context and constitutional status of each post.

It was argued that such omnibus direction was excessive, arbitrary and disproportionate. The petitioner also highlighted that the notice had directed removing the URLs within 3 hours, which was highly disproportionate considering that there was no disclosed emergency.

The State, on the other hand, argued the notice was issued in the interest of law and order and public tranquillity and the authorities were empowered to take preventive steps whenever online content was likely to disturb public order or generate communal, political or social tension.

A vacation bench of the High Court, in May, had stayed the notice, noting that it was vague and did not specify the reasons for blocking. The court had held that any restriction on free speech must be by giving thorough reasons and not by cryptic command.

The court further held that the power under Section 79(3)(b) could not be used as a general censorship mechanism. The court added that the procedure contemplated under Section 69A of the IT Act had to be strictly followed at the time of blocking, as these procedures were the bridge between state power and constitutional liberty. The court also added that the notice, requiring X to remove the content within 3 hours, was prima facie disproportionate since the State had not clarified the urgency.

Ordering a stay, the bench had held that if the notice was permitted to operate without scrutiny, lawful speech may remain suppressed and the injury to democratic discourse may be immediate and continuing.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Sunny Sheen, for Mr. C. Gunasekaran

Case Title: P Chockalingam v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 247

Case No: WP.No. 19439 of 2026