The social media platform X has communicated to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology that the recent directives to block certain user accounts are excessively infringing on the rights of account holders, as reported by a news outlet.

X expressed its concern that such actions could lead to permanent restrictions on users' ability to access the platform in India.

This statement was part of an objection letter sent to the ministry on March 19, where X urged a reconsideration of an order mandating the blocking of 12 accounts, including a parody account named “Dr Nimo Yadav,” according to another news source.

The platform contended that the blocking order issued on March 18 did not adhere to Section 69A of the Information Technology Act of 2000, which permits the government to request the removal of content deemed a threat to national security or public order.

This objection letter was revealed in an affidavit submitted by X to the Delhi High Court on March 30.

The affidavit is part of a petition filed on March 24 by Prateek Sharma, the operator of the “Dr Nimo Yadav” account, who is seeking to challenge the blocking order and requesting that both the ministry and X cease withholding the account.

Sharma's petition also calls for ensuring that any censorship on social media aligns with the IT Act and its regulations, as reported by a news outlet.

In the affidavit, X indicated that the blocking of the Dr Nimo Yadav account was based on allegations of controversial posts and defamation against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, according to another news source.

The affidavit presented by X in court detailed that the ministry held a virtual meeting with representatives from the social media platform on March 13 to discuss the blocking requests made by nodal officers under the 2009 Information Technology Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access to Information by Public Rules, as reported by a news outlet.

During this meeting, the ministry provided a list of at least 16 accounts that had posts deemed necessary for blocking under Section 69A of the IT Act. The meeting aimed to hear from the user who hosted the content and the intermediary.

Following the meeting, the ministry instructed X on March 18 to block 12 accounts “within one hour” of receiving the directive.

While the platform complied with the order and withheld the accounts, it subsequently sent an objection letter to the ministry on March 19.

In its letter dated March 19, X asserted that most content from the 12 accounts did not seem to meet the criteria outlined in Section 69A, stating that the blocking orders were “not proportionate,” as reported by a news outlet.

The platform argued that blocking entire accounts, rather than specific posts, is disproportionate and fails to meet the legal requirement for the “least intrusive measure.”

X also requested that the ministry issue “appropriate orders” to unblock the 12 accounts.

Furthermore, X claimed that it “verily believes” that none of the 12 account holders were given an opportunity to present their case, adding that the evidence provided regarding these accounts did not violate the stipulations of Section 69A of the IT Act, according to another news outlet.