The Supreme Court of India on Friday issued notice in a petition filed by actor and activist Sushant Singh, who is seeking to transfer his ongoing case from the Bombay High Court to the Supreme Court. His case challenges key provisions of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, also known as the IT Blocking Rules.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order and directed that Singh’s matter be listed along with an ongoing petition—Software Freedom Law Center, India (SFLC) v. Union of India—which raises similar legal questions regarding the validity and interpretation of the same 2009 Rules.
Background: Twitter Suspension and RTI Denial
The issue began in 2021, when Sushant Singh’s Twitter (now X) account was twice suspended without prior warning or explanation. When Singh sought clarity from the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), the ministry cited Rule 16 of the 2009 Rules, which mandates confidentiality around orders issued for blocking online content. As a result, MeitY refused to provide him with the orders or reasons behind the suspension, even when he filed an application under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Feeling aggrieved, Singh approached the Bombay High Court, arguing that such opacity violates principles of natural justice, transparency, and free speech. He contended that individuals should be given prior notice and a right to be heard before any content or account is blocked or taken down. He also argued that content creators must be allowed to access blocking or suspension orders, especially when they affect their speech and livelihood.
Rules Under Challenge
In his plea, Singh has challenged multiple aspects of the 2009 Rules:
-
Rule 8, which allows notice of a blocking action to be given to the “originator or intermediary”—not mandatorily the individual whose content is being blocked.
-
Rule 16, which enforces confidentiality and was cited to withhold information even under the RTI Act.
-
The use of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act as a basis to block content without adequate transparency or recourse.
He argues that these provisions are unconstitutional, especially when they are used to deny affected individuals the ability to understand or challenge actions taken against their online presence or expression.
Overlap with SFLC Case
While Singh’s case was pending before the High Court, a similar petition was filed by Software Freedom Law Center, India (SFLC) directly in the Supreme Court, challenging the same 2009 Rules. During a hearing in the SFLC matter in March 2025, the same bench—Justices Gavai and Masih—orally observed that where an individual can be identified, prior notice should ideally be given before blocking content.
Given the similarity in constitutional questions involved, Singh has requested that his case be transferred to the Supreme Court so it can be heard along with the SFLC petition, ensuring a consistent and unified interpretation of the law.
Court’s Direction
After briefly hearing the matter, the Supreme Court:
-
Issued notice on Singh’s transfer petition;
-
Ordered that his case be listed along with SFLC v. Union of India;
-
Did not make any further observations at this stage.
Case Title:
Sushant Singh v. Union of India
