TL;DR
On March 6, 2025, the Madras High Court granted interim relief to Ananda Vikatan, directing the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MIB) to restore public access to its website, except for the impugned cartoon. Lawyers from IFF offered pro-bono assistance in this case alongside a larger legal team. The next hearing is scheduled for March 21, 2025.
Background
On February 15, 2025, Vikatan, a leading Tamil media platform, discovered that its website (www.vikatan.com) had been blocked across multiple Internet Service Providers (ISPs) without prior notice or an official order from the Union Government. Vikatan ruled out technical failures, as its hosting providers confirmed no disruptions. ISPs later displayed domain-block messages, suggesting government-imposed restrictions without formal notice or explanation.
Following repeated inquiries, MIB confirmed that it had invoked its blocking powers under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules, 2021). Central to this dispute is a cartoon satire on a deportation controversy concerning Indian migrants in the United States. The Government has alleged that this satirical cartoon endangers India’s sovereignty and “friendly relations” with foreign states. The caricature depicts the Prime Minister of India and the President of the United States seated next to each other in which the Indian Prime Minister is bound by chains, while the US President sits beside him, laughing and appearing gleeful. The overall impression is one of political commentary and in public interest given their recent meeting and the deportation of Indian migrants in shackles.
Due to their website being blocked, Vikatan sought legal assistance from the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF).
Vikatan Challenges Unlawful Website Blocking Before the Madras High Court
Challenging the decision and process followed by the Inter-Departmental Committee, Vikatan filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court. The petition argues that the blocking is not connected to the grounds of reasonable restrictions under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000 and Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India. It also states that in any case, the blocking of an entire website—rather than restricting specific content is disproportionante—violates constitutionally protected rights to free speech, due process, and natural justice. The Government claimed the cartoon threatened India’s sovereignty and friendly relations with foreign states. However, Vikatan’s petition contended that there was no demonstrable link between the cartoon and any actual harm to sovereignty or diplomatic relations. The petition asserts that blocking the entire website amounts to prior restraint on free speech, a violation of Vikatan’s economic and operational rights, and an infringement on the audience’s right to access legitimate news and commentary.
The petition further argues that the Government’s actions contravene procedural safeguards recognized by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. The Court has previously held that prior notice, a fair hearing, and a reasoned order subject to judicial review are essential before content can be lawfully restricted. By invoking an "emergency" procedure in secrecy and withholding the blocking order, the Government denied Vikatan a fair opportunity to contest the action, violating due process and natural justice. The Government’s claim that blocking the entire domain was unavoidable due to "technical limitations" is disproportionate. The petition argues that this action censored far more than the impugned cartoon, erasing lawful editorial content and disrupting Vikatan’s journalistic operations. Vikatan seeks immediate restoration of access to its website.
Proceedings Before the Madras High Court
Vikatan’s writ petition was listed before Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy on March 6, 2025 where Senior Advocate Vijay Narayan, appearing for Vikatan, argued that blocking the entire website for nearly a month was disproportionate and violated constitutional safeguards under Article 19(2) and Section 69A of the IT Act. He contended that the cartoon constituted legitimate journalistic expression and did not fall within the scope of Section 69A.
He further emphasized that there was no nexus between the cartoon and India’s sovereignty and integrity or friendly relations with foreign states, as alleged by the Government. Sovereignty alone is not a valid ground for restricting speech—the Government must demonstrate a direct and proximate link between the content and an actual threat to India’s sovereignty and integrity. He also raised transparency concerns, pointing out that the Government refused to disclose the complainant's identity or the basis for the complaint. In response, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) AR.L. Sundaresan, representing the MIB, defended the blocking, arguing that the cartoon impacted India’s foreign relations and justified action under Section 69A. He opposed interim relief, stating that allowing access to the website before a final decision would preempt the Government’s response. However, he acknowledged that the Inter-Departmental Committee had recommended restoring access if the cartoon was removed.
Madras High Court Grants Interim Relief to Vikatan
Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy held that blocking the entire Vikatan website was unnecessary and directed the MIB to restore public access, except for the impugned cartoon. The Madras High Court observed that the cartoon appeared to be the only objectionable content and therefore, the rest of the website should remain accessible to subscribers. The Court directed Vikatan to temporarily remove the cartoon and make the website operational immediately, pending final adjudication. Following the removal, Vikatan must submit an email confirmation to the Ministry, after which the website block must be lifted without delay. The next hearing is scheduled for March 21, 2025, and the MIB has been granted time to file a counter-affidavit.
The writ petition was drafted by the IFF legal team, comprising Advocates Apar Gupta, Gautam Bhatia, Abhinav Sekhri, and Gayatri Malhotra. It was settled by Advocate Rahul Unnikrishnan and filed by his team, which included Advocates Gayatri T. and Jannani M. We commend Vikatan for taking the initiative to approach the Madras High Court and for their unwavering commitment to challenging censorship in the digital age. IFF remains committed to supporting Vikatan in this legal challenge and continues its work in defending press freedom, digital rights, and the need for a transparent and accountable governance framework for the internet.
Important Documents
- Order dated 06.03.2025 (link)