New Delhi: Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) activist Abhijeet Dipke has criticised the government’s restrictions on social media accounts, arguing that removing online content will not resolve public concerns and could further weaken trust in the authorities.
In a post on X on Wednesday, Dipke objected to the reported action against Instagram accounts used to raise questions about public issues. He maintained that grievances expressed online stem from real-world problems and cannot be addressed simply by restricting digital platforms.
Dipke warned that censorship could deepen public dissatisfaction rather than silence criticism. His comments come amid a wider debate over government-directed content removals, access restrictions on social media and the protection of freedom of expression.
Activists and political groups have questioned the use of provisions such as Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, which empowers the government to direct the blocking of online information under specified legal conditions.
Debate Over Online Restrictions Intensifies
Opponents of social media restrictions argue that online platforms have become important spaces for citizens to raise concerns about unemployment, examination paper leaks, public infrastructure and governance.
They contend that restricting accounts does little to address the issues behind public criticism. Instead, they say, such measures can limit access to information and leave users questioning the transparency of government decisions.
The government’s powers to restrict online content have increasingly become a subject of legal and public debate, particularly when accounts are withheld without the affected users being informed of the specific reasons.
Delhi High Court Seeks Centre’s Response on Instagram Handle
Dipke’s remarks came a day after the Delhi High Court sought the Centre’s response to a petition challenging the restriction of the Instagram account @bring_back__ballot in India.
The account is associated with the ‘Bring Back Ballot’ campaign run by Mission Save Constitution and its national convenor, advocate Mehmood Pracha. The initiative advocates a return to paper ballots for elections.
According to the petition, the account became inaccessible in India on October 10, the day a protest demanding paper ballots was held at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi.
Justice Amit Mahajan issued notices to the Central Government and the relevant department, seeking their responses. The matter has been listed for further hearing on November 6.
Meta Platforms was represented by advocate Amee Rana, who accepted notice. Central Government Standing Counsel Ashish Dixit accepted notice on behalf of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, and the designated officer.
Petitioners Question Lack of Notice
The petition, filed through advocate Nikhil Guliani, challenges the decision to withhold the Instagram account. Advocate Sanawar Chaudhary, appearing for the petitioners, told the court that the account displayed a message stating that access was unavailable in India because the platform had complied with a legal request.
The petitioners alleged that they had not received prior notice, an opportunity to be heard, the reasons for the restriction or a copy of the order directing the action.
The account had been used to promote the campaign under the slogan ‘EVM Hatao Desh Bachao’ and mobilise supporters for the October 10 demonstration. The petition also stated that the organisers had informed Delhi Police about the planned protest on October 9.
The allegations concerning the restriction and the absence of notice are part of the ongoing legal challenge; the court has sought the government’s response.
Freedom of Expression in Focus
The case has added to the debate over how authorities exercise their powers to regulate online content and what safeguards should apply when social media accounts are blocked.
While Dipke has argued that restrictions will not eliminate public grievances, the legal challenge before the Delhi High Court raises questions about the procedures followed when access to an account is withheld.
The court’s further consideration of the matter on November 6 is expected to bring additional developments in the dispute over the Instagram handle.
