Political commentator and satirist Kumar Nayan has approached the Delhi High Court challenging the blocking of his entire X account “nher_who” within India under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The petition alleges that the account was blocked pursuant to action initiated by the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB), without furnishing the blocking order, reasons or supporting material.

Nayan has contended that the action violates his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The matter will be heard tomorrow by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma.

Nayan is represented by Advocates Apar Gupta Naman Kumar and Pragya Jain.

Nayan, who has operated the account since October 2016, states that it had over 250,000 followers at the time of the impugned action. He describes himself as an independent digital commentator engaged in public discourse.

According to the petition, X Corp informed Nayan on July 27 that it had received a Section 69A blocking order from the MIB and was required to withhold access to his entire account in India.

The following day, the Ministry issued a notice proposing blocking of the account and supplied a list of URLs allegedly relied upon for the action. However, Nayan alleges that the blocking order pursuant to which the account had already been withheld was never supplied to him.

As per the plea, Nayan subsequently participated in proceedings before the Inter-Departmental Committee (IDC) on August 07. He contends that even before and during those proceedings, he was not furnished the blocking order and therefore remained unaware of the precise reasons, statutory grounds and material forming the basis for blocking his entire account.

The petition further states that despite the IDC proceedings, neither the blocking order nor the final order was furnished to Nayan.

For context, Nayan's account was earlier also blocked after which he had approached the High Court. In April, a coordinate bench had directed immediate restoration of the account. His account was subsequently restored in India, while specific URLs remained withheld.

Nayan has now alleged that despite the Court's direction, he was never furnished a copy of the earlier blocking order. He states that a redacted copy was merely shown to him and his counsel for about 10–15 minutes during the proceedings before the Inter-Ministerial Committee and was thereafter taken back.

Nayan argues that the subsequent blocking by the MIB, within a few months of the earlier action, cannot be viewed in isolation and amounts to successive restrictions on the same individual's means of expression.

“While those proceedings remain pending, the Petitioner's entire account has once again been blocked, this time pursuant to action initiated through the MIB. The Petitioner submits that these successive actions have the cumulative effect of repeatedly depriving him of access to his entire platform and audience within India,” the plea states.

It adds that the case, when viewed cumulatively, disclose a “continuing pattern of prejudice” against Nayan and gives rise to a “serious and legitimate apprehension of selective and mala fide targeting.”

“The present blocking action cannot be viewed in isolation. Within a period of approximately five months, the Petitioner's same X account has been subjected to successive blocking actions initiated through different Ministries of the Union of India. In the earlier instance, action was taken through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology under the Blocking Rules, 2009. In the present instance, action has been initiated through the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the IT Rules, 2021,” he has said.

Nayan argues that wholesale blocking of the account amounts to a prior restraint on speech and shifts the target of State action from specific allegedly unlawful content to the user himself.

He contends that such a restriction must satisfy a higher proportionality threshold and cannot be justified merely on the basis of alleged offending posts.

He also asserts that wholesale blocking affects not only his own right to freedom of speech and expression but also the corresponding right of his audience to receive information and participate in public discourse.

The petition alleges that the absence of adequate notice and disclosure of relevant material vitiated the hearing process itself, since Nayan was unable to effectively respond to allegations without knowing the legal basis and material relied upon by the authorities.

Nayan has sought directions calling for the records relating to the blocking of his X account, including the Section 69A blocking order and the minutes of the IDC meeting dated August 07.

He has further sought quashing of all orders and directions issued under Section 69A in respect of his account and a direction to X Corp. to immediately restore access to his account in India.

Title: KUMAR NAYAN v. UNION OF INDIA