Vivek Mukherji v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC17 Jan 2026W.P.(C)/654/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court; W.P.(C) 654/2026; Vivek Mukherji v. Union of India & Anr.; 'X' (formerly Twitter); government takedown/blocking request; Section 69A Information Technology Act, 2001; IT Blocking Rules 2009; Article 19(1)(a) freedom of speech; Article 19(1)(g) journalist occupation; Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1 paragraph 114; absence of cause of action; petition disposed of; Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav J.; order dated 17.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

As of now, there does not seem to be any cause of action for the petition, because the petitioner is unaware of the contents of the impugned request. ¶¶16

Vivek Mukherji Vs Union of India & Anr. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the request by respondent no. 1 (Union of India) to respondent no. 2 ('X') for removal of the petitioner's content is violative of the petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g) and in contravention of the scheme of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2001 and the IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. +1 more

¶¶15

Court's answer

The legal position enunciated in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India will have full application in cases involving blocking of content.

¶¶16

Ratio / Principle

As of now, there does not seem to be any cause of action for the petition, because the petitioner is unaware of the contents of the impugned request.

¶¶16

Key takeaways

If any action is contemplated against the petitioner, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law.obiter¶¶17
If the action of respondent no. 1 is in violation of statutory provisions or the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the same will have to be considered appropriately.obiter¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav J.), W.P.(C) 654/2026, order dated 17.01.2026 — Vivek Mukherji v. Union of India & Anr.: Petitioner, a journalist, sought quashing of the request/communication/action by respondent no. 1 (Union of India) to respondent no. 2 ('X', formerly Twitter) for removal of his content dated 12.11.2025, which 'X' had disclosed to him vide email dated 20.11.2025 (Annexure A-2). Counsel relied on paragraph 114 of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1, contending violation of Article 19(1)(a) (free speech) and Article 19(1)(g) (occupation as journalist), and contravention of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2001 and the IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. The Court held that while the Shreya Singhal legal position fully applies to blocking cases, there was, as of then, no cause of action since the petitioner was unaware of the contents of the impugned request, and the content had neither been taken down nor deleted. The petition was disposed of with observations: if any action is contemplated, the petitioner may take appropriate recourse in accordance with law, and any action of respondent no. 1 violating statutory provisions or Supreme Court law would have to be considered appropriately.

¶1

$~2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 654/2026 & CM APPL. 3218/2026

¶4

VIVEK MUKHERJI .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Sarim Naved and Mr. Mohd Nuomaan, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ishkaran Singh Bhandari, CGSG & Mr. Piyush Yadav, Advocate for R- 1.

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

¶9

O R D E R % 17.01.2026

¶10

The petition is for quashing the action/communication/request respondent no. 1-the Union of India to respondent no. 2-‘X’ (formerly Twitter) for removal of the petitioner’s content dated 12.11.2025 on the platform. The said request/communication/action was disclosed to the petitioner by respondent no. 2, vide email dated 20.11.2025 (Annexure A-2). 2. The content posted by the petitioner has not been directed to be taken down or deleted, and still exists in the petitioner’s ‘X’ account.

¶11

Mr. Sarim Naved, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on paragraph 114 of the decision in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India¹ and asserts that the impugned request for blocking the

¶12

1 (2015) 5 SCC 1

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/01/2026 at 12:54:09

¶15

aforesaid content was in violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights to the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the freedom to carry on his occupation as a journalist under Article 19(1)(g). He also submits that the impugned request is in contravention of the scheme of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2001 as well as the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.

¶16

No doubt, the legal position enunciated therein, will have full application in cases involving blocking of content. However, as of now, there does not seem to be any cause of action for the petition as the petitioner is unaware of the contents of the impugned request.

¶17

In any case, if any action is contemplated against the petitioner, the petitioner shall be at liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance with law.

¶18

If the action of the respondent no. 1 is in violation of statutory provisions or the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the same will have to be considered appropriately.

¶19

With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.

¶20

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J

¶21

JANUARY 17, 2026/p/amg

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/01/2026 at 12:54:09

Vivek Mukherji v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Mukherji v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.S.Bindra Vs Oriental Bank of Commerece & O

Ajay Kumar Vs Union of India & Anr.

Express Freight Consortium Vs Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department & Ors.

Shri Mannulal Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Glo Interio Vs Sales Tax Officer & Ors.

M/S. Friends Telecom Vs Commissioner of Central Tax and Cgst Delhi North

Anju Dhankar Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Supreme Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. and Anr. Vs D.D.A. and Anr.

Ajay Kumar Vs Union of India & Anr.

Malabar Gold and Diamond Limited & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Al Madina Masjid Vs Religious Committee & Ors.

Mohammad Wasi through Spa Suman Patra Vs Central Adoption Resource Authority & Anr.

Anju Dhankar Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Sewa Nagar Market Welfare Association (Regd) Vs Union of India & Ors.