Justices *L. Victoria Gowri* & *N. Senthilkumar* *Relief*: *Interim stay* on operation of the notice. Enforcement of takedown directions to X Corp *halted* till further orders. *Next date*: *June 8, 2026*. State to file reply.
[15/05, 07:27] sekarreporter1: Fascism Payasam: Madras High Court Stays TN Police Move To Block Posts Critical Of TVK Govt
https://dhunt.in/14lTm8
By The Commune via Dailyhunt
[15/05, 07:27] Meta AI: *”Fascism Payasam: Madras High Court Stays TN Police Move To Block Posts Critical Of TVK Govt”*
_The Commune via Dailyhunt_
*1. What happened – May 13, 2026*
The *Madras High Court* stayed a *May 8, 2026* notice by the *TN Cyber Crime Wing* that directed *X Corp* to _“immediately remove or disable access”_ to *18 posts* critical of *Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK)* and *Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay*.
*Vacation Bench*: Justices *L. Victoria Gowri* & *N. Senthilkumar* 32a8
*2. The Police Notice*
1. *Legal basis*: Section 79(3)(b) of IT Act, 2000 + Rule 3(1)(d) of IT Rules, 2021
2. *Claim*: Posts contained _“provocative and politically sensitive remarks capable of inciting public unrest and disturbing public tranquility”_
3. *Content*: Most flagged URLs were _“critical of Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) and Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay”_. Included posts by right-wing YouTuber *Maridhas*, *Rationalist_RMD*, *SparkPluz_*, etc
4. *Direction to X*: Remove URLs + _“take proactive measures to prevent further dissemination”_. Warned X could lose safe harbour under Sec 79 if non-compliant 32a81a2bda7d
*3. PIL & Court’s Interim Order*
1. *Petitioner*: *P. Chokkalingam*, North TN president of *Vishwa Hindu Parishad*
2. *Prayer*: Quash notice + direction to stop _“blanket or omnibus orders suspending/blocking/removing lawful political criticism, democratic discussion, satire, dissent”_
3. *Arguments*:
– Account holders weren’t informed or given chance to respond before takedown
– Notice violates *Article 19(1)(a)* – freedom of speech
– _“Common direction without separately examining each post”_ is illegal
4. *Interim relief*: HC *stayed the notice*. Directed respondents to file reply. Next hearing *June 8, 2026* 32a865c8
*4. “Fascism Payasam” Context*
_The Commune_ article frames it as TVK govt targeting critics while its own _“Virtual Warriors”_ abused TN Governor without action. da7d
*Background*:
– *May 10, 2026*: C. Joseph Vijay sworn in as CM after TVK won 2026 Assembly polls, ending DMK/AIADMK dominance
– *May 11, 2026*: Reports that _“posts and news reports critical of the government are allegedly being mass-reported… and subsequently taken down”_ + legal action
– *Oct 6, 2025*: 4 people, including TVK supporters, arrested for derogatory posts against Justice N. Senthilkumar who had pulled up Vijay in Karur stampede case 1a2b06b19441
*5. Free Speech Concerns Raised*
1. *Advocate S. Karthikeyan*: Police file takedown petitions making only X Corp respondent, _“intentionally excluding content creator”_. Courts pass _“one-sided orders”_
2. *Digital editor K. Rajasekar*: _“Since new government assumed office, posts… critical of govt are allegedly being mass-reported… I consider this condemnable”_
3. *Earlier HC view*: Justice G.R. Swaminathan – _“Foisting cases against individuals for expressing opinions… is indicative of a fascist approach”_ 06b101bb
*6. What’s Next*
1. *June 8, 2026*: HC will hear the case. Stay continues till then.
2. *Larger pattern*: Article notes similar use of IT Rules by various state govts to classify criticism as _“threat to public order”_ 1a2b
*Bottom line*: Within 3 days of TVK govt taking office, TN Police moved to block 18 X posts mocking/criticizing it. Madras HC stayed it, citing free speech concerns. The _“Fascism Payasam”_ headline contrasts govt action on critics vs inaction on its own supporters abusing Governor.
Want the full list of 18 URLs or the text of the police notice?
[15/05, 07:27] sekarreporter1: The disputed notice had been issued by the Tamil Nadu police on May 8 under intermediary liability provisions of the Information Technology Act and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. X Corp was directed to suspend or block the flagged URLs/posts within three hours.
According to sources familiar with the matter, a majority of the posts targeted by the notice allegedly contained criticism of the ruling Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) government and Chief Minister C. Joseph Vijay. The inclusion of posts shared by political commentators and YouTubers, including Maridhas, triggered widespread debate online over freedom of speech and the use of cybercrime provisions against government critics.
The police action had drawn sharp criticism from several netizens and free speech advocates, who alleged that the takedown order amounted to suppression of dissent and criticism directed at the newly formed government.
During the hearing, the petition challenged the validity of the police notice and raised concerns over the scope of powers exercised under the IT Rules for directing content removal on social media platforms.
Following preliminary submissions, the Bench granted an interim stay on the operation of the notice, effectively halting enforcement of the takedown directions issued to X Corp until further proceedings in the case.
Follow Dailyhunt on WhatsApp
[15/05, 07:28] Meta AI: *Madras HC Stays TN Police Notice to Block 18 Anti-TVK Posts | May 13, 2026*
*1. The Notice – May 8, 2026*
*Issued by*: Tamil Nadu Cyber Crime Wing
*To*: X Corp
*Legal basis*: Section 79(3)(b) IT Act, 2000 + Rule 3(1)(d) IT Rules, 2021
*Direction*: Suspend/block 18 URLs *within 3 hours*. Warned X could lose _safe harbour_ if non-compliant.
*Content flagged*: Majority were posts critical of *TVK government* and *CM C. Joseph Vijay*. Included handles of political commentators/YouTubers like *Maridhas*, *Rationalist_RMD*, *SparkPluz_*.
*Police claim*: Posts had _“provocative and politically sensitive remarks capable of inciting public unrest and disturbing public tranquility”_ and _“encouraging unlawful assembly”_.
*2. PIL & Challenge*
*Petitioner*: *P. Chokkalingam*, North TN president, VHP
*Filed*: PIL in Madras HC vacation bench
*Grounds*:
1. *No notice to creators*: Account holders not informed or given chance to respond before takedown order.
2. *Blanket order*: 18 URLs clubbed together _“without separately examining or analysing”_ each post.
3. *Free speech*: Violates *Article 19(1)(a)*. Notice targets _“lawful political criticism, democratic discussion, satire, dissent”_.
4. *Scope of IT Rules*: Challenged extent of police powers under IT Rules to direct content removal.
*3. Court Order – May 13, 2026*
*Bench*: Justices *L. Victoria Gowri* & *N. Senthilkumar*
*Relief*: *Interim stay* on operation of the notice. Enforcement of takedown directions to X Corp *halted* till further orders.
*Next date*: *June 8, 2026*. State to file reply.
*4. Backlash & Context*
1. *Timing*: Came just 3 days after *C. Joseph Vijay* was sworn in as CM on *May 10, 2026*, after TVK’s 2026 Assembly win.
2. *Free speech debate*: Inclusion of *Maridhas* and other commentators sparked criticism online. Netizens/free speech advocates called it _“suppression of dissent”_ against new govt.
3. *Pattern alleged*: Digital editor *K. Rajasekar* said _“since new government assumed office, posts… critical of govt are allegedly being mass-reported… and taken down”_.
4. *“Fascism Payasam” framing*: _The Commune_ report contrasted action on TVK critics vs alleged inaction when TVK supporters abused TN Governor earlier.
*5. Key Legal Issues Before HC*
1. Can police issue omnibus takedown notices under IT Rules without hearing content creators?
2. Does criticism of ruling party/Govt qualify as _“unlawful content”_ threatening public order?
3. Scope of Section 79(3)(b) + Rule 3(1)(d) vs Article 19(1)(a).
*Bottom line*: TN Police’s first major social media takedown move under new TVK govt was stayed by Madras HC. Court put brakes on blocking 18 anti-TVK posts, citing free speech and procedural concerns. Case to test limits of cybercrime wing’s powers over political criticism.
Want the full list of 18 accounts/posts or a copy of the May 8 police notice?
