New Delhi: There was no immediate relief for the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) from the Delhi High Court on Friday. The Court declined to immediately direct restoration of its ‘X’ account, observing that the content on the page appeared “slightly offensive”.
The matter required “holistic consideration” and any order would be passed only after hearing the Centre and X, a bench of justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed while hearing a petition filed by CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke.
In previous cases it had ordered restoration of accounts while directing temporary blocking of allegedly offending posts, the Court noted. However, in the present matter, after viewing the communication issued by social media platform ‘X’ to Dipke, the bench observed that the “entire activity per se is perhaps slightly offending”, as reported by Hindustan Times.
The bench, however, issued notice on the petition and directed the Centre and X to file a “comprehensive affidavit”. It also granted Dipke liberty to present his case before the Centre’s review committee under Rule 14 of the 2009 Blocking Rules, which examines blocking orders.
The review committee has also been directed by the Court to decide on the blocking of the account and place its decision before it on the next date of hearing on July 6.
“Mr Sibal, in all those matters, we normally pass the interim order or the final order after hearing the other side. There seems to be a slight difference in this case and that case. In this case the entire activity per se is perhaps slightly offending. In your submissions, this requires to be considered holistically. I am not saying no. We will hear the other side. These are far-reaching issues and wider,” the Court observed.
“We will consider it. The entire law with respect to these actions are still in the nascent stage. Let us not precipitate. We will issue a notice. The court’s attention is drawn to Rule 14 of IT Rules which provides a review committee to meet once in two months and records its findings. And if it is of opinion, it may set aside directions and order unblocking. Rule 14 clearly empowers the review committee to examine all aspects which are sought to be put forth by the petitioner,” it further said.
Dipke’s counsel, Akhil Sibal, along with advocate Nakul Gandhi, urged the court to order restoration of the account while permitting allegedly offending posts to remain temporarily blocked. Sibal argued that similar interim relief had been granted in five comparable cases earlier.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, along with additional solicitor general Chetan Sharma and standing counsel Avshreya Rudy, opposed the interim relief, saying such an order would effectively allow the petition at the interim stage itself.
The CJP came into being amid controversy surrounding remarks attributed to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant during a hearing on conferring “senior” designation on a lawyer, in which “youngsters” were allegedly referred to as “cockroaches” and “parasites”. The CJI later clarified that his remarks had been misquoted and were directed at individuals entering the legal profession with “fake and bogus degrees”.
CJP’s account on X was withheld five days after its launch and rapid rise on social media, . Users attempting to access the handle ‘@CJP_2029’ encountered a notice stating that the account had been “withheld in India in response to a legal demand”. Dipke later shared a screenshot of the notice online, describing the move as “expected”.
Hours later, the group resurfaced under a new handle, “Cockroach is back”, posting: “You thought you could get rid of us? Lol.”
The matter took a political turn with several opposition leaders amplifying the campaign online. Trinamool Congress leaders Mahua Moitra and Kirti Azad publicly engaged with the movement and shared its posts.
Such leaders from the opposition parties said the campaign’s popularity reflected growing frustration among unemployed youth, accusing the government of failing to address concerns over jobs and inflation.
Several Congress and Left-leaning social media handles also described the campaign as a “digital protest” against the political establishment.
