In a striking display of selective justice, the Delhi High Court on Monday ordered immediate restoration of the parody account “Dr. Nimo Yadav”, run by petitioner Prateek Sharma, despite its history of derogating the Indian Army and defaming PM Narendra Modi, while accounts like Vijay Gajera’s remain suspended without relief. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the order amid backlash over perceived government favoritism, effectively signaling: “You can be in government, but the system is ours.”
As reported in LiveLaw, the court directed X to restore Sharma’s entire “Dr. Nimo Yadav” account immediately, while keeping specific allegedly objectionable tweets under temporary block. It issued a similar directive for Kumar Nayan’s “Nehr Who” account, one of 12 blocked under MeitY’s directives. The bench further ordered petitioners to appear before MeitY’s Review Committee, where the ministry must demonstrate if tweets were correctly blocked under Section 69A of the IT Act, ensuring “principles of natural justice shall be followed.” A detailed order copy is awaited.
This comes as parody accounts like Nimo Yadav, known for Army insults and AI-manipulated anti-Modi content, get fast-tracked relief, contrasting the ongoing suspension of Vijay Gajera’s account, blocked for exposing Pakistani supporters without comparable judicial intervention.
Advocate Vrinda Grover, for Sharma, blasted the process: “What is the legal scheme? The legal scheme cannot be that you violate my fundamental rights, when I move a constitutional court then in order to avoid judicial scrutiny you quickly send me…that can never be the scheme in this country…Reasons have to be in the order, and blocking is of information. Blocking order passed by Respondent No.1 (UOI) is to withhold my entire account, not information…This is a totally illegal arbitrary order. To ask me now, after you have blocked my account (not url) on March 19, you say now that ‘you come to the Review Committee’.”
She noted Sharma filed on March 25 after X’s March 19 notification of withholding, with zero prior Union communication: “petitioner received no communication at all from the Union Government. She said that the communication from Union had come after the petitioner had filed a petition before the high court.”
ASG Chetan Sharma countered: “Let her appear today, because we sent another email on 4th (April)…that exercise is necessary…there are three things, her March 19 communication states that till date no government authority has contacted me issued notice or provided opportunity to be heard, so this basically on pnj (principles of natural justice). Rule 14 is on PNJ.” He cited Rule 14 of Blocking Rules, claiming emails were sent for Review Committee appearance.
X Corp had informed the court the blocks stemmed from MeitY orders for “controversial posts and defaming Prime Minister Narendra Modi.” An affidavit detailed “defamatory posts” using photographs, videos, and AI content questioning the government and PM. On 19 March 2026, X objected to MeitY, stating the March 18 order fails Section 69A compliance: “the vast majority of the content in each of the X accounts does not appear to fall within the grounds specified under Section 69A and thus the Blocking Order issued is not proportionate.” X added no hearing opportunity was granted, and reasonable efforts for identifying blocked persons were absent.
Grover argued the order fell outside Section 69A domain, demanding full reopening. The ruling restores access pending review, fueling cries of two-tier justice where anti-Army, anti-India parody thrives but people like Gajera languish.
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
