Actor and activist Sushant Singh seeks transfer of his petition challenging the IT Blocking Rules from the Bombay High Court to the Supreme Court of India, raising concerns over online censorship, transparency, and digital rights in India.

Introduction: A Legal Challenge to India’s Internet Censorship Framework

Renowned actor and social activist Sushant Singh has approached the Supreme Court of India seeking a transfer of his legal petition from the Bombay High Court. His plea challenges the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, commonly known as the IT Blocking Rules.

Background: Twitter Suspension and Denial of Transparency

Singh’s petition stems from the suspension of his Twitter account (now X) in 2021—twice, and without clear justification. Upon requesting access to the orders leading to the suspension, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) cited Rule 16 of the 2009 Rules, which enforces confidentiality regarding such actions.

Frustrated by the lack of transparency, Singh filed a case in the Bombay High Court under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act), challenging MeitY’s refusal to disclose blocking orders or provide any hearing.

Legal Grounds: Challenging Rule 16 and Section 69A

Sushant Singh’s core argument questions the constitutional validity of Rule 16, which mandates secrecy without notifying the content creator or intermediary. He also opposes the use of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 to deny RTI requests.

According to Singh, these provisions infringe on:

• Freedom of speech and expression

• Right to legal remedy

• Transparency in governance

Parallel Case: Software Freedom Law Center v. Union of India

A similar petition was filed by the Software Freedom Law Center, India (SFLC) and is currently pending before the Supreme Court. During a March 2025 hearing, Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih noted that, in principle, users must be given notice if identifiable.

This statement aligns closely with Singh’s demand for prior notice and access to blocking orders.

Singh’s Transfer Request: Why It Matters

Given the overlapping legal issues, Singh has requested the Supreme Court to consolidate his case with the ongoing SFLC matter. A unified verdict could set a precedent for future content moderation and free speech cases in India’s digital space.

Similar Case: Journalist Sanjay Sharma’s Plea

Adding to the growing scrutiny, journalist Sanjay Sharma has also approached the Supreme Court after his YouTube news show, “4PM”, was blocked over alleged concerns of public order and national security. He demands the immediate restoration of his platform.

Conclusion: Growing Pushback Against Digital Censorship

The cases filed by Sushant Singh, SFLC, and Sanjay Sharma collectively reflect increasing public resistance to opaque online censorship mechanisms under India’s IT laws. The Supreme Court’s ruling could reshape how online speech and platform access are regulated in the country.