Delhi HC Directs Restoration Of Satirical X Account 'Nimo Yadav', 'Nehr Who'
The Court ruled that the specific posts cited in the blocking order would continue to be withheld.
advertisement
The Delhi High Court has ordered the restoration of two satirical X (formerly Twitter) accounts, @DrNimoYadav and @Nehr_who, which had been withheld in India since 18 March 2026 following directions from the Union government. The court, while allowing the accounts to be reinstated, directed that certain posts flagged as objectionable by authorities remain blocked pending further review by a government-appointed committee.
According to Scroll, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav ruled that the accounts should be restored, but the specific posts cited in the blocking order would continue to be withheld. The operators of the accounts, Prateek Sharma (@DrNimoYadav) and Kumar Nayan (@Nehr_who), were instructed to appear before a review committee of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to determine the status of the blocked posts under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act.
As reported by Bar and Bench, the government’s blocking order, dated 18 March 2026, alleged that the accounts were “spreading false narratives involving the Prime Minister” and using photographs, videos, and AI-generated content to defame Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The court was informed that the blocking order was only shared with Sharma after he filed a writ petition challenging the action.
Legal representatives for Sharma argued that the blocking order was arbitrary and that the account’s continued suspension had resulted in loss of income and disruption of professional activities. Counsel for X (formerly Twitter) submitted that blocking individual tweets, rather than entire accounts, would be a more proportionate response, stating, “If the petitioner deletes these tweets and ultimately my whole Lord holds that these were free speech, then there’s no way to restore them (if the account is deleted as a whole).”
“The legal scheme cannot be that you violate my rights to avoid judicial scrutiny. The blocking order is totally illegal, arbitrary order from 19th March today, being 6th of April. I want my account to be reopened. They have delineated 10 tweets. This is not within domain of Section 69A. If these are the offending tweets, I would delete these particular tweets and restore my account,” Sharma’s counsel argued in court.
As highlighted by recent coverage, the Union government’s affidavit claimed that the accounts posed a threat to public order and internal security. Section 69A of the IT Act empowers the government to direct content removal if it is deemed to threaten national security, sovereignty, or public order. The blocking order also affected 11 other X accounts, including those of journalists and activists.
Further analysis showed that the court’s interim arrangement allows the review committee to assess whether the flagged posts should remain blocked. The operators have been given an opportunity to respond to the government’s concerns before any final decision is made regarding the disputed content.
The court’s order follows X’s communication to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, in which the platform argued that the government’s recent blocking orders “excessively and disproportionately restrict the account holder’s rights.” The company stated that the blocking order did not comply with the requirements of Section 69A, as reporting indicated.
“The account holder will be unable to use X in India permanently,” X stated in its submission, raising concerns about the proportionality and legality of the government’s action.
The Delhi High Court’s decision to restore the accounts, while maintaining the block on specific posts, represents a significant development in the ongoing debate over social media regulation and freedom of expression in India. The matter remains under review by the designated committee, and further proceedings will determine the final status of the disputed content as details emerged.
Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.