New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has issued notice to the Union of India on a writ petition filed by the Aam Aadmi Party challenging the suspension of its Gujarat unit’s Instagram handle and Facebook page, and has tagged the matter with a pending PIL involving similar issues concerning the blocking of social media accounts without notice to users.
A bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe passed the order on 08.05.2026, tagging the petition with Software Freedom Law Center, India v. Union of India, a PIL challenging the blocking of social media accounts and posts without issuing notice to users.
The Gujarat unit’s Instagram handle, @aapgujarat, and its Facebook page were suspended on 25.04.2026, ahead of local body elections in Gujarat. The suspension was linked to alleged copyright violations involving the use of scenes and clips from Gujarati films in political campaign material without permission. AAP leaders claimed at the time that the action was politically motivated and alleged that Meta blocked the accounts at the behest of the BJP.
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, appearing for the petitioner, contended that Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act is not applicable in the present case, as it is a safe harbour provision for intermediaries and not a source of power for authorities to direct the blocking of information. He submitted that while the SFLC petition involved overlapping issues, it did not involve identical issues. He further highlighted the urgency of the matter, submitting that the petitioner’s platform was unavailable and that it may need to post content in the interim.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that issuing notice to the Union may not be necessary and that a copy of the petition could instead be served on him.
The Court proceeded to issue notice and tag the matter with the SFLC petition.
In its petition, the AAP has questioned the legal basis for the blocking and suspension of its social media accounts. It has sought a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act is not a source of power for authorities to direct the blocking of information, and that all consequential directions, rules, and notifications issued under the provision, insofar as they relate to the blocking of information, are void. It has sought quashing of the directions allegedly issued by law enforcement authorities to Meta for blocking or suspending the Gujarat unit’s accounts, and has also sought directions from the Court to call for records relating to the blocking directions.
The petition has further sought a declaration that the blocking of the @aapgujarat Instagram account and Facebook page is arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, and violative of the Constitution. It has also sought guidelines and procedural safeguards governing the blocking or suspension of official social media accounts of registered political parties, urging the Court to ensure that such action is taken only after prior notice, an opportunity of hearing, and written reasons, and strictly in conformity with the grounds under Article 19(2) of the Constitution read with Section 69A of the IT Act.
Section 79 of the IT Act deals with exemption from liability of intermediaries. Section 79(3)(b) provides that the safe harbour protection available to intermediaries will not apply if, upon receiving actual knowledge through a court order or government notification that unlawful information hosted on its platform is being used to commit an unlawful act, the intermediary fails to expeditiously remove or disable access to that material. Section 69A empowers the government to block public access to online information in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, or for preventing incitement to the commission of a cognisable offence relating to those grounds.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Aam Aadmi Party Secretary v. Union of India
- Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 576/2026
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Bench: Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe
- Date of Hearing: 08.05.2026
Appearances:
- For the Petitioner: Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat
- For the Union of India: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta
