Twitter’s lawyer on October 27, said before the Karnataka High Court that Union government orders to block certain Twitter handles and posts must contain reasons for the same that can be communicated to users of the microblogging site. He said this applies to all blocking orders sent to social media platforms. The lawyer representing Twitter said that reasons for the blocking order must be provided to users so they can determine whether or not they want to challenge the orders.
Challenging the blocking orders, Twitter’s July 5 petition contended that several blocking orders “demonstrate excessive use of powers and are disproportionate”. Such orders can only be issued by the Union government and not the state governments, he said, which increases the danger of such abuse. Twitter also claimed that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology had sent it a letter threatening consequences for failing to comply with the blocking orders, such as criminal proceedings against the company’s chief compliance officer and the stripping away of Twitter’s safe harbour immunity, otherwise available to social media platforms under Section 79(1) of the Information Technology Act (the “IT Act”). Note that the Government has the power to strip away such safe harbour immunity under the IT Act. Further, in a previous hearing, Twitter’s lawyer said that the company was asked to block entire accounts, although Section 69A of the IT Act does not permit blocking of the whole account. It only permits the blocking of information, or a particular tweet or post. It argued that the Union government’s direction to block whole accounts will affect its business, adding that several prominent persons have their accounts on the platform.
Complying with a fourth blocking order that they receive from Sunil, UnReal blocks Sachin’s account, since his posts were seen as increasingly objectionable by the government. Sachin asks UnReal to share the reasons for the blocking order, which they do, yet Sachin claims the blocking order is invalid. Is he right?
Correct Answer :
Yes, since Section 69A of the IT Act only permits blocking information, or a particular post, but not a whole account.
Solution :
The correct option is: Yes, since Section 69A of the IT Act only permits blocking information, or a particular post, but not a whole account.
Step-by-Step Explanation:
1. Analyze the legal premise from the passage:
According to the provided passage, Section 69A of the Information Technology Act (IT Act) does not permit the blocking of an entire account. It only allows for the blocking of specific information, such as a particular tweet or post.
2. Evaluate the scenario:
In the given scenario, UnReal blocks Sachin's entire account upon receiving a blocking order. Even though UnReal shared the reasons for the blocking order with Sachin, the action taken—blocking an entire account—exceeds the scope of powers granted under Section 69A of the IT Act.
3. Conclusion:
Therefore, Sachin is correct in claiming that the blocking order/action is invalid, precisely because Section 69A of the IT Act permits blocking only specific posts or information, not the entire account.
Access expert-curated educational resources and study materials—completely free.
Create, conduct, and manage professional online assessments with Mindyard. Perfect for teachers and institutes.
Copyright © 2026 Mindyard. All Rights Reserved.