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.
Some days later, Sunil notices another post from Sachin on UnReal’s social media platform; this post contains some highly sensitive information about the country’s defence policies. He issues an order to UnReal, that the post must be blocked since it divulges the government’s confidential information. The order also says that UnReal should not let anyone know about the blocking order, or that the post was ordered to be deleted, since it relates to secret government information. UnReal claims that this order is invalid. Is UnReal right?
Correct Answer :
Yes, since it did not provide any reasons that could be communicated to the users of the social media platform.
Solution :
Correct Answer: Yes, since it did not provide any reasons that could be communicated to the users of the social media platform.
Step-by-Step Explanation:
1. Understanding the Legal Principle/Passage Guidelines:
According to the passage, blocking orders sent to social media platforms must contain reasons for the blocking that can be communicated to the users. This allows users to understand why their content or handle is being blocked and enables them to determine whether they wish to legally challenge the order.
2. Analyzing the Given Situation:
Sunil issued an order to UnReal to block Sachin's post containing sensitive defense information.
However, the order specifically directed UnReal not to let anyone know about the blocking order or that the post was ordered to be deleted.
By prohibiting disclosure and withholding reasons that can be communicated to the platform's users, the blocking order violates the requirement specified in the passage.
3. Conclusion:
Therefore, UnReal is right in claiming that the blocking order is invalid because it failed to provide reasons that could be communicated to the users of the platform.
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.