The Delhi High Court has disposed of a writ petition filed by Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde seeking the restoration of his suspended Twitter account and the issuance of guidelines to regulate censorship on social media platforms under the framework of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju, while closing the plea, directed Twitter (now rebranded as X) to ensure that no action is taken against the petitioner except in accordance with the law and applicable statutory rules and guidelines.

The petition stemmed from Twitter’s suspension of Hegde’s account, @sanjayuvacha, in October 2019. At the time of its suspension, the account had garnered a substantial following of over 90,000 users. The suspension was triggered after Hegde posted a historical photograph of August Landmesser—a German man who famously refused to perform the Nazi salute at a rally, where others around him complied. Twitter categorized the photograph as “hateful imagery,” leading to the abrupt deactivation of Hegde’s account.

Following this, Hegde approached the Delhi High Court, arguing that the suspension was arbitrary, violated his right to free speech, and lacked due process. He sought two main reliefs: first, the restoration of his Twitter account, and second, a direction to the Union Government to formulate comprehensive guidelines ensuring that any censorship on social media platforms aligns strictly with the constitutional principles of freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) and reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). Pending the formulation of such guidelines, Hegde urged the Court to issue interim measures to safeguard digital expression.

During the course of proceedings, Twitter contended that the relief sought by Hegde had already been granted, as the account was reinstated on January 9, 2023. The platform's counsel, represented by Advocates Ankit Parhar and Abishek Kumar, argued that the petition had become infructuous since the primary prayer—restoration of the account—no longer survived. It was further submitted that the Union Government had, in February 2021, introduced the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (hereafter, IT Rules, 2021), thereby addressing the petitioner’s concerns regarding regulatory guidelines for social media platforms. Counsel emphasized that “keeping the petition pending would only serve as an academic exercise.”

On behalf of Hegde, Counsel Pranjal Kishore and Madiya Mushtaq pointed out that while the account was restored, the lack of any explanation for its suspension and subsequent reinstatement created significant apprehension. Counsel argued that Twitter’s failure to provide clarity left the petitioner vulnerable to potential future suspensions based on arbitrary reasons, thereby compromising the assurance of due process. They underscored the fact that the same photograph of August Landmesser, which led to the initial suspension, continues to be displayed on the petitioner’s account without objection. This, the counsel argued, raises legitimate concerns regarding transparency and the platform's accountability.

The Union Government, represented by Advocate Amit Tiwari, supported Twitter's position, asserting that under the IT Rules, 2021, intermediaries such as Twitter are now legally obligated to comply with the prescribed regulations before taking any steps to moderate content or suspend accounts. The government contended that the regulatory framework sufficiently addresses the concerns raised in the petition.

Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju disposed of the writ petition, observing that the reliefs sought by the petitioner had been effectively addressed. While issuing a protective direction, the Court ordered: “In view of the aforegoing, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the directions that no action shall be taken against the Petitioner by the Respondent No. 2, except in accordance with the law and applicable statutory rules and guidelines.”

The Court’s directive ensures that Twitter cannot act against an account holder arbitrarily and must adhere to the legal framework established under the IT Rules, 2021 and other applicable statutes. However, the Court refrained from delving into the broader constitutional issue of censorship on social media platforms, leaving open questions regarding safeguards for free speech in the digital space.

Case Title: SANJAY R HEGDE v. THE MINISTRY OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND ANR

Case No: W.P.(C) 13275/2019, CM APPL. 53972/2019, 5543/2020 & 38829/2023

Bench: Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju