The Madras High Court on Monday (May 13, 2026) stayed the operation of a notice issued by the Cyber Crime Wing of the Tamil Nadu Police on May 8, 2026, asking X Corp to immediately remove or disable access to 18 posts, which reportedly contained “provocative and politically sensitive remarks capable of inciting public unrest and disturbing public tranquility”. Most of the flagged URLs/posts allegedly contained content critical of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) and Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay

A summer vacation Bench of Justices L. Victoria Gowri and N. Senthilkumar granted the interim stay pursuant to a public interest litigation (PIL) petition filed by P. Chockalingam, 55, North Tamil Nadu president of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad. The petitioner had urged the court to quash the notice and issue a direction to the Cyber Crime Wing not to stifle democratic discussions on social media platforms.

The petitioner told the court the police had issued the notice under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008 and Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. They had listed out 18 URLs of X (formerly Twitter) posts and claimed that they contained “unlawful content.”

“The posts are encouraging unlawful assembly, which could adversely affect the maintenance of law and order and could lead to loss of life and damage to public property... I, being the authorised officer, hereby issue this notice directing you to immediately remove or disable access to the identified account and all objectionable URLs,” the Cyber Crime Wing notice read.

‘Raises constitutional concerns’

Wondering how the police could curb free speech by way of an omnibus notice issued for a group of 18 URLs, the writ petitioner said: “I am constrained to state that the manner in which such directions have been issued raises serious constitutional concerns touching upon the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.”

The petitioner also said: “I understand that the affected account holders were neither informed of the allegations against them nor afforded any meaningful opportunity to respond before the issuance of the coercive removal/blocking directions. Even in matters involving regulation of online speech, constitutional principles of natural justice, fairness, and procedural safeguards cannot be dispensed with.”