1 week ago
X says Punjab Police lacked legal power to block posts
Nikhil Saraf posted messages about alleged police encounters and other police-related issues on X. Punjab Police told X to remove several of his posts.
The police said one screenshot in a post appeared to be fake.
X temporarily blocked Saraf’s account after receiving the orders.
Later, X restored the account after Saraf went to court.
X told the court that the police used the wrong law to request the removals.
It said only a specially authorized government officer or a court can issue a blocking order.
The police say the screenshot was fabricated and had sought action against the posts.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court will consider the dispute while a related legal question is also before the Supreme Court.
X Corp told the Punjab and Haryana High Court that Punjab Police had no legal authority to order posts blocked.
Police used Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act to seek removal of posts by writer Nikhil Saraf.
X argued that blocking powers belong to a designated officer under Section 69A or to a court.
The disputed posts included allegations about extrajudicial killings and a screenshot attributed to Punjab DGP Gaurav Yadav.
X said Saraf’s account was blocked but restored months later after he filed a petition.
- Who
- Writer Nikhil Saraf, X Corp, the State of Punjab and Punjab Police are parties in the case; the disputed screenshot refers to Punjab DGP Gaurav Yadav and Barnala SSP Sarfaraz Alam.
- What
- X challenged Punjab Police orders directing it to remove Saraf’s posts and argued that the police lacked authority to issue blocking orders under Section 79(3)(b).
- Where
- The dispute concerns posts on X and proceedings in the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
- When
- The orders were issued between late July and early August last year; X lifted Saraf’s account block months later after his petition was filed.
- Why
- Saraf’s posts discussed alleged extrajudicial killings, police conduct and a purported police chiefs’ group-chat screenshot; police said the screenshot appeared fabricated and sought its removal.
X Corp’s legal position
Punjab Police’s position
Authority to block posts
X Corp’s legal position
X says Section 79(3)(b) only provides an exemption for platforms and does not authorize police to issue blocking orders; it says Section 69A or a court is required.
Punjab Police’s position
Punjab Police used Section 79(3)(b) notices directing X to remove Saraf’s posts, warning of potential loss of legal protection or prosecution if X did not comply.
Authenticity of the group-chat screenshot
X Corp’s legal position
X placed the screenshot in the court record as material connected to Saraf’s post and questioned the legal basis for the police’s removal demand.
Punjab Police’s position
Police said the screenshot attributed messages to Punjab DGP Gaurav Yadav and Barnala SSP Sarfaraz Alam and appeared to be intentionally fabricated.
Alleged defamation and court relief
X Corp’s legal position
X argued that the police lacked standing over defamation because it is not a cognisable offence, and that a writ cannot be maintained against X because it is not “the State” under Article 12.
Punjab Police’s position
The police sought removal of material they treated as objectionable, while X said any relief should instead target the State of Punjab and Punjab Police orders.
Key facts
- Petitioner
- Nikhil Saraf, who writes about police and jail reform
- Respondents
- X Corp, the State of Punjab and Punjab Police
- Law invoked by police
- Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act
- X’s legal argument
- Blocking authority lies with a designated officer under Section 69A, after required safeguards, or with a court
- Account action
- X blocked Saraf’s account and later restored it after receiving his petition
- Disputed material
- A screenshot captioned “Police Chiefs Group,” which police called intentionally fabricated
- Related litigation
- X has appealed a Karnataka High Court ruling on the Union government’s Sahyog portal and Section 79(3)(b)
Sources
Related news
X’s Transparency Pledge Collides With India’s Secrecy Rules
India’s Digital Blocking Orders Raise Fresh Free Expression Concerns
India's Social Media Blocking Framework Explained by MeitY Secretary
Supreme Court stays Sahyog portal challenges, hearing August 10
Ranchi Cyber Police Seek X Data on JPSC-JSSC Account
Supreme Court Orders Restoration of AAP Gujarat's Facebook, Instagram Accounts
Two Years After RG Kar Doctor's Rape-Murder, Case Remains Unresolved
ED widens Chhattisgarh probes with two arrests and searches
Delhi High Court Orders Madhya Pradesh to Pay Advocate Dues
Haryana sanitation workers’ strike puts BJP government under pressure
Orissa High Court Says Brothel Customers Cannot Face Trafficking Charges
