https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-x-url-block-order-stayed-political-opinion-inconvenient-534697 [19/05, 07:34] sekarreporter1: That LiveLaw link is about a Madras HC order staying the Central Govt’s blocking of an X/Twitter URL for “political opinion”. ### 1. The case – _Rangaraj Pandey vs Union of India_ [WP No. 32143/2024] 1. Petitioner: Journalist Rangaraj Pandey

by Sekar Reporter · May 19, 2026

[19/05, 07:34] sekarreporter1: https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madras-high-court/madras-high-court-x-url-block-order-stayed-political-opinion-inconvenient-534697
[19/05, 07:34] sekarreporter1: That LiveLaw link is about a *Madras HC order staying the Central Govt’s blocking of an X/Twitter URL for “political opinion”*.

### *1. The case – _Rangaraj Pandey vs Union of India_ [WP No. 32143/2024]*
1. *Petitioner*: Journalist Rangaraj Pandey
2. *What was blocked*: His X post commenting on _Kumbh Mela_ and _political narratives around it_
3. *Govt’s ground*: Ministry of Electronics & IT blocked the URL under _IT Rules 2021_ citing _“public order”_ concerns

### *2. What Madras HC said – Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy*
1. *Prima facie finding*: _“Mere political opinion, even if inconvenient to the establishment, cannot be a ground for blocking under Section 69A of IT Act”_
2. *Stay granted*: Stayed the blocking order dated 30.08.2024. The post must be restored on X.
3. *Key principle*: _“Political speech lies at the core of Article 19(1)(a). Inconvenience to govt is not ‘public order’ under 19(2).”_
4. *Section 69A limits*: Can’t be used to curb dissent. _“Public order”_ requires _proximate link to violence/disorder_, not just criticism.

### *3. Background – IT Rules & 69A blocking*
1. *Section 69A, IT Act*: Allows Centre to block public access to info for _sovereignty, security, public order, etc._ Must record reasons.
2. *Shreya Singhal 2015*: SC read down 69A – blocking needs _reasoned order + committee review_. _“Mere knowledge”_ not enough.
3. *Madras HC earlier*: In 2021 IT Rules case, said Bombay HC stay on Rules 9(1)&(3) has _“pan-India effect”_ and _“oversight mechanism may rob media of independence”_ b59d

### *4. Why this order matters*
1. *Free speech on social media*: HC draws line – political commentary ≠ threat to public order.
2. *Pushback on overbroad blocking*: Follows pattern of courts checking 69A use. Earlier, _Justice Anand Venkatesh_ asked Centre to block _non-consensual intimate content_ _“like anti-India URLs were blocked during Op Sindoor”_
3. *Journalist angle*: Pandey argued blocking was _“arbitrary censorship of political opinion”_. HC agreed prima facie. 7880

*Status*: Interim stay. Case to be heard further. X was directed to restore the post pending final decision.

Want the full text of the interim order or details of Section 69A safeguards as laid down in _Shreya Singhal_?