KUMAR NAYAN vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~86 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4377/2026 Date of Decision: 06.04.2026 IN THE MATTER OF: KUMAR NAYAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Apar Gupta, Mr. Nakul Gandhi, Ms. Indumugi C., Mr. Naman Kumar, Ms. Avanti Deshpande, Ms. Siddhi Sahoo, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Ms Akanksha Gupta (SPC) with Ms Priya Shankar, Advocate for UOI. Mr. Ankit Parhar, Mr. Tejpal Singh Rathore, Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Ms. Tanish Gupta, Ms. Sanchli Sethi, Advocates for R-2/ X Corp. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV JUDGEMENT PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL) CM APPL. 21383/2026 (EXEMPTION) CM APPL. 21384/2026 (EXEMPTION) Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR Signed SHARMA Signing Date:07.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA 20:06:30 W.P.(C) 4377/2026 Page 1 of 3 KUMAR KAURAV 1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 4377/2026 and CM APPL. 21382/2026 (INTERIM RELIEF) 3. This Court vide an order passed on even date dealt with an almost similar lis in Prateek Sharma v. Union of India and Ors.1 The submissions made by the petitioner and the respondents are also, largely, the same. 4. The same directions, are, therefore being passed, which are as under: (i) Let the petitioner to approach the Review Committee2 and furnish necessary details to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (“MeitY”) regarding his identity; (ii) On doing so, subject to verification, let MeitY to intimate the petitioner what the allegedly objectionable tweets are and to also provide the blocking order vide which the said tweets were directed to be blocked. Let respondent no. 2-X Corp. (“X”) to temporary block/suspend the same subject to a