Published Apr 06, 2026 | 6:52 PM ⚊ Updated Apr 06, 2026 | 6:52 PM
Representational image. Credit: iStock
Synopsis: The Delhi High Court directed immediate restoration of the blocked parody X accounts “Dr Nimo Yadav” and “Nehr Who”, which were taken down on 19 March under Section 69A on MeitY orders for allegedly defamatory and AI-manipulated content targeting PM Modi. Specific flagged tweets will remain withheld pending MeitY review, while stressing natural justice. Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover represented the petitioner.
In a swift order delivered on Monday, 6 April, the Delhi High Court directed the immediate restoration of the popular satirical X account “Dr Nimo Yadav”, run by petitioner Prateek Sharma.
The account had been blocked across India on the directions of the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, reported Live Law.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, hearing the plea filed by Sharma, also ordered the restoration of a second parody account, “Nehr Who”, operated by Kumar Nayan.
While the accounts must be restored without delay, the court ruled that specific tweets flagged in the government’s blocking order will remain temporarily withheld pending review by MeitY’s Review Committee. Sharma and Nayan have been directed to appear before the committee.
The court emphasised principles of natural justice and noted that the government remains free to monitor the accounts and take further legal action if additional objectionable content is posted.
Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover represented Prateek Sharma in the matter.
The “Dr Nimo Yadav” account was among 12 X handles blocked in India on or around 19 March, following a MeitY directive. According to affidavits filed in court by X Corp and the government, the account was flagged for posting “defamatory” content, including photographs, videos, and AI-manipulated material that allegedly spread “false narratives” about Prime Minister Narendra Modi, portrayed him in “bad taste”, and questioned the Centre.
The order cited potential risks to “public order” and “internal security”.
X Corp had earlier told the court and MeitY that the blanket blocking of entire accounts was “disproportionate” and failed to meet the requirements of Section 69A, urging a review of the order.
Section 69A of the IT Act empowers the Centre to direct intermediaries (such as X, Facebook, or YouTube) to block access to any online information if it is deemed necessary in the interest of:
– Sovereignty and integrity of India
– Defence
– Security of the state
– Public order
– Friendly relations with foreign states
– Prevention of incitement to an offence.
Blocking orders are issued by MeitY and are typically confidential. Platforms must comply within tight timelines under the IT Rules, 2021, or risk losing safe-harbour protection under the IT Act.
Critics, including digital rights groups and opposition voices, argue that Section 69A is increasingly used to target journalists, satirists, parody accounts, and critics.
In recent months, dozens of satirical and opposition-linked X accounts have faced similar blocks, often without prior notice to the users. X has repeatedly described some of these orders as excessive, noting that permanent account-level blocks severely restrict users’ rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution (freedom of speech and expression).
