Supreme Court Seeks Union's Response On AAP Plea Against Suspension Of Gujarat Unit's Instagram & Facebook Accounts
Hey future lawyers, this news about the Aam Aadmi Party is super relevant for your CLAT constitutional law prep. So basically, the AAP's Gujarat unit had its Instagram and Facebook accounts suspended, allegedly for copyright violations, right before local elections. They've approached the Supreme Court, challenging this blocking. What this really means is, it's a crucial case about freedom of speech, Article 19(1)(a), and arbitrary state action under Article 14. It questions the power to block content under Section 69A of the IT Act, especially concerning Section 79(3)(b). This is tagged with the Software Freedom Law Center case, a similar issue. Bottom line for the exam, remember the interplay between free speech, state power, and IT Act sections like 69A and 79.
The Aam Aadmi Party has approached Supreme Court challenging the suspension of the Gujarat unit's Instagram handle “@aapgujarat” and its Facebook page.
A bench ofJustice PS Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradheissued notice on plea to the Union today and tagged it with other petitions involving similar issue.
The Court tagged it withSoftware Freedom Law Center, India v. Union of India, a PIL challenging the blocking of social media accounts/posts without issuing notice to the user.
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasatcontended that section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act is not applicable, as it is a safe harbour provision for the intermediary. He submitted that the SFLC petition involves overlapping, but not identical issues. He further highlighted the urgency of the case, “today my portal is gone and I may need to post something in the interim.”
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehtasubmitted that issuing notice to the Union may not be necessary, and said that a copy can be served on him.
The suspension took place on April 25, 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. At the time, AAP leaders claimed that the action was politically motivated, and alleged that Meta blocked the accounts at BJP's behest.
In its petition, the party has questioned the legal basis for the blocking and suspension of its social media accounts. The petition seeks a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) is not an source of power for authorities to direct blocking of information.
Section 79 deals with exemption from liability of intermediaries. Sub-section (3)(b) states 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.
The plea also seeks a declaration that all consequential directions, rules and notifications issued under the provision, insofar as they relate to blocking of information, are void.
AAP has sought quashing of the directions allegedly issued by law enforcement authorities to Meta for blocking or suspending the Gujarat unit's Instagram and Facebook accounts. The petition seeks direction from the Court to call for the records relating to the blocking directions.
The party has further sought a declaration that the action of blocking the “@aapgujarat” Instagram account and Facebook page is arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and violative of the Constitution.
The plea also seeks guidelines and procedural safeguards governing blocking or suspension of official social media accounts of registered political parties.
It has asked the Court to ensure that such action can only be taken after prior notice, an opportunity of hearing, and written reasons, and only in conformity with the grounds under Article 19(2) of the Constitution read with Section 69A of the IT Act.
Section 69A empowers the government to block public access to online information under specified conditions – 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 these grounds.
Case Title – Aam Aadmi Party Secretary v. Union of India