|
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday issued notice to Central Government in a plea challenging the withholding of the Instagram handle @bring_back__ballot in India. The Bring Back Ballot initiative is of Petitioners Mission Save Constitution and advocate Mehmood Pracha, the National Convenor.
It is said that the handle was withheld on October 10, 2026, before a protest at Jantar Mantar. Justice Amit Mahajan issued notice to the Central Government and the concerned department and sought a response to the petition. The matter has been listed for hearing on November 6. Advocate Amee Rana appeared for Meta Platform and accepted notice. Central Government Standing Counsel (CGSC) Ashish Dixit appeared for the Central Government and accepted notice on behalf of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and its designated officer. A petition has been moved through Advocate Nikhil Guliani against the withholding. Advocate Sanawar Chaudhary appeared for the petitioner and submitted that on October 10, 2026, the very day of the Petitioners peaceful protest at Jantar Mantar, the handle began displaying the message: Account not available in India. This is because we complied with a legal request to restrict this content. "No notice, hearing, reasons or copy of any order was ever furnished to the Petitioners." The petition has stated that the handle advocated a return to paper ballots in Indian elections under the slogan EVM Hatao Desh Bachao, and mobilised citizens for the peaceful protest at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi on October 10, 2026, of which prior intimation had been given to the Delhi Police on October 9, 2026. Advocacy for a change in the mode of voting is core political speech protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. No content on the Handle falls within any ground under Article 19(2) of the Constitution or Section 69A(1) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, the plea said. The petitioner said that the restriction was passed without the notice and hearing mandated by Rule 8 of the said Rules. It withholds the entire account, followed by over 50,000 persons, instead of any specific post and is therefore disproportionate. It is unreasoned and has never been communicated, leaving the Petitioners without any remedy, the plea said. It further said that there is no published policy, standard operating procedure or guideline setting out when and how the Respondents direct Instagram and other intermediaries to withhold entire accounts. "Restrictions on fundamental rights cannot be imposed under an undisclosed policy, which is not law within the meaning of Article 19(2)." (ANI)
|
