In Court

Updates from @internetfreedom's legal team on digital rights cases across India. Want us to track a digital rights case? Ping us on [email protected]

[Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) @internetfreedom]

The Delhi High Court has directed the Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) under the 2021 IT Rules to dispose of appeals within 30 days, after delays in hearing an appeal filed by content creator @thinkwithsubodh against a permanent Instagram ban. (1/5)

Read More: https://t.co/JYxbxW47QG

[In Court @IFFinCourt]

The Appellant's counsel stated that affected parties are free to opt for an appeal independent of other remedies available to them, especially when they are press publications whose art 19(1)(a) is affected (citing Bloomberg v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.).

[In Court @IFFinCourt]

Respondent No. 1's argued that the 30 day period to hear all parties and pass a confirmatory order of the lower court has not been exhausted (citing A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S Chellappan).

[In Court @IFFinCourt]

#HearingUpdate: Respondent No. 1 (Manoj Sandesara) filed an application for dismissal of appeal today. Arguments were heard on maintainability of the appeal. The Ld. District Judge has listed the case tomorrow (30 April 2026) as Item 22 for clarifications/orders.

[In Court @IFFinCourt]

The appeal against the order of the SCJ granting ex-parte ad-interim injunction in Manoj Kumar Sandesara v. Google LLC, CS SCJ 459/2026 against various press publications, including @MoneylifeIndia is listed for hearing today before DJ Vinod Kumar Meena of Tis Hazari courts.

[In Court @IFFinCourt]

For a more detailed account of these proceedings, please see:
https://t.co/NwiBRYYX8y

[In Court @IFFinCourt]

The appeal against the order of the SCJ granting ex-parte ad-interim injunction in Manoj Kumar Sandesara v. Google LLC, CS SCJ 459/2026 against various press publications, including @MoneylifeIndia is listed for hearing today before DJ Vinod Kumar Meena of Tis Hazari courts.

[In Court @IFFinCourt]

In the last hearing, notice was issued in the appeal, and the respondent was expected to file a reply. Today, arguments on the appeal may be heard. We will keep you posted!

[In Court @IFFinCourt]

@pbhushan1 @apar1984 @namanbasoyaa @indumugic We are deeply grateful to @cheryldis for her invaluable support throughout this matter.

[In Court @IFFinCourt]

Ranveer Gautam Allahbadia v. Union of India, W.P. (Crl.) No. 83/2025, along with the connected matters including M/s Cure SMA Foundation of India, W.P.(C) No. 460/2025 is listed tomorrow before a Bench comprising the Hon'ble CJI, HMJ Bagchi, and HMJ Pancholi in the Supreme Court.

[In Court @IFFinCourt]

And to issue a public notice enabling meaningful stakeholder participation.
Adv. @pbhushan1 will be leading the arguments for Dr. VK Tiwari, briefed by Advocates @apar1984 , @namanbasoyaa , Avanti Deshpande, and @indumugic .

[Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) @internetfreedom]

Proton Mail has been reprieved in India after the Karnataka High Court stayed a single judge’s April 2025 order directing its blocking. The stay came in a writ appeal filed by Proton AG. Next hearing: June 23, 2026. (1/5)
Read More: https://t.co/wfUZFd15F4

[In Court @IFFinCourt]

The Bombay High Court granted a week's time to the petitioners to amend their writ petition, in light of the proposed amendments to the 2021 IT Rules. It also gave two weeks time for the Union to file its reply.

[In Court @IFFinCourt]

The writs filed by Sr Adv Haresh Jagtiani and @kunalkamra88 challenging the amendment to Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 IT Rules purportedly giving legal basis to the Sahyog mechanism are listed in the Bombay High Court before the Chief Justice of Bombay HC and Justice Gautam Ankhad

[In Court @IFFinCourt]

Earlier, X Corp, DIGIPUB, and Abhinandan Sekhri challenged the Sahyog mechanism (without basis in statute) before the Karnataka High Court. The single judge ruled against the writ petitioners, and that judgment is now in appeal before a division bench. https://t.co/drqrkUtZGG

[In Court @IFFinCourt]

The writs filed by Sr Adv Haresh Jagtiani and @kunalkamra88 challenging the amendment to Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 IT Rules purportedly giving legal basis to the Sahyog mechanism are listed in the Bombay High Court before the Chief Justice of Bombay HC and Justice Gautam Ankhad

[In Court @IFFinCourt]

The plea states that Rule 3(1)(d) and the Sahyog Portal create a takedown regime parallel to that of Section 69A of the IT Act and the Blocking Rules without the legally mandated safeguards, and is therefore manifestly arbitrary. We will keep you updated on the hearings!

[Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) @internetfreedom]

The Delhi High Court has intervened in two important cases challenging account blocking orders issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. The Court has ordered restoration of the accounts, while keeping specific tweets under temporary block. This is a significant moment for due process in online speech cases. (1/10)
Read More: https://t.co/ktuyXudeSW

[In Court @IFFinCourt]

The Karnataka High Court has renotified the Digipub's appeal to be listed along with a similar appeal by X Corp (formerly Twitter) which also challenges the single judge's order. The next date of hearing in these appeals is 11 June 2026.

[In Court @IFFinCourt]

@DigipubIndia and @AbhinandanSekhr's Writ Appeal before the Karnataka High Court in the case challenging the Sahyog mechanism is listed as Item No. 17 in List 2 before Hon’ble Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and and Hon’ble Justice C.M. Poonacha.

[In Court @IFFinCourt]

X Corp.’s Writ Petition was dismissed, and DIGIPUB’s application for intervention was rejected without assigning any specific reason for the rejection. The writ appeal challenges this judgment. We will keep you posted on any updates from the hearing.

[In Court @IFFinCourt]

@DigipubIndia and @AbhinandanSekhr's Writ Appeal before the Karnataka High Court in the case challenging the Sahyog mechanism is listed as Item No. 17 in List 2 before Hon’ble Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and and Hon’ble Justice C.M. Poonacha.

[In Court @IFFinCourt]

X Corp.’s Writ Petition and DIGIPUB’s intervention challenged the use of Section 79 of the IT Act read with Rule 3(1)(d), IT Rules 2021 to issue takedown notices / blocking orders through the extra-statutory ‘Sahyog’ portal, instead of Section 69A of the IT Act.