Access the court order here: [PDF]
“Thus, on a prima facie consideration, we find that the impugned notice is bereft of post-wise reasons, does not disclose individualised application of mind, invokes Section 79(3)(b) in a manner requiring deeper judicial scrutiny, and appears to trench upon the safeguards recognized in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India,” noted Madras High Court on May 13 while passing an interim stay order against Tamil Nadu (TN) police’s blocking orders of several social media posts on X.
The court directed X platform to unblock and restore all the URLs mentioned in the Tamil Nadu police’s May 8 notice, and also clarified that the interim order does not prevent authorities from taking action against any specific content if:
More importantly, blocking or takedown orders should be supported by “recorded reasons and application of mind,” noted Madras HC.
What happened:
- On May 8, 2026, the Superintendent of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, sent notices to X seeking the removal or blocking of multiple URLs on X (formerly Twitter).
- TN police issued the notices under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
- P.Chockalingam, President of Vishwa Hindu Parishad, filed a petition challenging the TN Police’s order.
Here are key quotes on online free speech from Madras HC judges L. Victoria Gowri J and N. Senthilkumar J:
On a three-hour take-down compliance period: “Such a short timeline, in the absence of disclosed emergency or imminent threat, prima facie appears disproportionate. Where the State invokes urgency, the urgency must be apparent either from the record or from the reasons. Otherwise, urgency becomes a cloak for bypassing procedural fairness.”
“If democratic speech is to be restricted, the restriction must walk through the narrow constitutional doorway of Article 19(2), carrying with it the burden of legality, necessity, proportionality and reasons.”
“In the absence of such safeguards, an omnibus blocking direction becomes not merely an administrative act, but a constitutional concern. Silence imposed without reasons is antithetical to the culture of justification that sustains constitutional democracy.” – Madras HC
Free speech restrictions shouldn’t be vague, excessive or mechanical: “Article 19(2) undoubtedly permits the State to impose reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression… However, such restrictions must be reasonable. It must be founded on law. It must disclose a proximate nexus with a constitutionally permissible ground. It must be necessary. It must be proportionate. It must not be vague, excessive or mechanical.”
“Unless the impugned content is shown to have a direct and proximate tendency to incite violence, public disorder or an offence falling within Article 19(2), removal or blocking of such content would amount to impermissible censorship.” – Madras HC
Shreya Singhal’s…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
