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:
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 judgment is the lighthouse for online speech: “Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, is a constitutional lighthouse in matters concerning online speech. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held that discussion and advocacy, even of unpopular or disagreeable causes, remain protected under Article 19(1)(a), and that State interference becomes constitutionally permissible only when such discussion or advocacy reaches the level of incitement.”
“A chilling effect is not always visible. It operates silently. It compels citizens to self-censor. It makes a content creator pause not because the law prohibits speech, but because the consequences of speaking are uncertain, sudden and opaque.” – Madras HC
On misusing broad and vague expressions as reasons to block free speech: “Political sensitivity cannot be the measure of constitutional permissibility. A democracy cannot treat criticism as disorder, satire as sedition, dissent as danger or opinion as offence.”
The court noted the following terms as broad expressions:
“The constitutional value of free speech is tested most severely when the speech in question is inconvenient to authority.” – Madras HC
On misusing Section 79 for auto-blocking free speech arbitrarily: “Prima facie, Section 79(3)(b) is not an independent reservoir of blocking power. It cannot be converted into a general censorship mechanism. Where the State seeks to block public access to information through a computer resource, the statutory framework under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the procedure prescribed thereunder assume constitutional significance. The safeguards under the statute are not decorative formalities. They are the bridge between State power and constitutional liberty.”
“When the State restricts speech, it must speak through reasons. A citizen’s liberty cannot be curtailed by a cryptic command. A content creator cannot be silenced by an omnibus formula. A political opinion cannot be removed merely because it is sharp, inconvenient, satirical, dissenting or unpalatable.” – Madras HC
On the importance of documenting the reasons for blocking orders: The court emphasised the need to record the reasons for blocking free speech under Section 69A of the IT Act. “The requirement of reasons is a constitutional discipline. Reasons are the heartbeat of administrative fairness. They demonstrate application of mind. They permit judicial review. They assure the citizen that power has not been exercised arbitrarily,” noted the judge.
“The power to block or remove online content is a serious power. It may affect not only the author of the content but also the public’s right to receive information. In the digital age, blocking a URL may silence a speaker, erase a viewpoint and impoverish public debate. Therefore, such power must be exercised with precision, restraint and reasons.” – Madras HC
What did VHP’s Chockalingam seek from the Madras HC? The VHP president’s petition also said that blocking orders are violative of his right to equality [Article 14] and freedom of speech and expression [Article 19(1)(a)] and sought the following reliefs:
What are VHP Chokkalingam’s claims and allegations?
What did the TN government respond to these claims? TN’s Additional Public Prosecutor argued that:
What the TN govt didn’t disclose: Additionally, the court also noted that respondents (TN police) haven’t filed a counter affidavit explaining:
What did the Madras HC ask of the TN government? Therefore, the court directed the Additional Public Prosecutor to file a detailed counter-affidavit explaining:
Madras HC will hear the case on June 8, 2026.
Also Read MediaNama’s recent coverage from our discussion on IT rules and the future of free speech in India:
For You
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。