The Madras High Court on October 30 issued notice on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking an inquiry into the identity, nationality and background of journalist and Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) spokesperson Saurav Das. Filed by Ganesh Kumar, the petition also seeks cancellation of Das’s passport and Aadhaar if an inquiry finds him to be a foreign national, besides blocking his X and Instagram accounts over alleged derogatory remarks about the judiciary.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan sought responses from Das, the Union government and other respondents, including the grievance officers of X and Instagram. The respondents have been given six weeks to respond. The court has not ordered an investigation, cancelled any documents or directed the blocking of Das’s social-media accounts at this stage.
What The Petition Seeks
The petition, titled Ganesh Kumar v Regional Passport Officer, identifies Das as “Yogesh Sharma alias Saurav Das” and seeks an inquiry into his antecedents, nationality and personal background, including details concerning his parents. The petitioner has referred to documents relating to Das’s identity and addresses and alleged that these require verification.
The plea further alleges that Das made derogatory statements concerning the judiciary, including judges of the Supreme Court and various High Courts. Based on these allegations, it seeks directions to the authorities to examine his background and, if he is found to be a foreign national, cancel his passport and Aadhaar. These claims are contained in the petition and have not been established by the court.
Court Seeks Six-Week Reply
During the preliminary hearing, counsel for the petitioner referred to documents annexed to the petition and drew the bench’s attention to the alleged statements concerning the judiciary. Advocate B Jagannath, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the manner in which Das allegedly speaks about the judiciary was objectionable. The petitioner also relied on a representation submitted to the Centre on October 7, claiming that no action had followed.
The bench has now sought responses from the Regional Passport Officer, Chennai; UIDAI; the Union Ministry of Home Affairs; the Ministry of External Affairs; the Ministry of Law and Justice; the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology; and the grievance officers of X and Instagram, among others. The matter is expected to be listed after the six-week response period.
Social Media Blocking Plea
The PIL also asks the authorities to block Das’s X and Instagram accounts over the alleged remarks against the judiciary and to prevent further statements of a similar nature. However, the High Court has not directed either platform to block his accounts.
The notice only seeks responses from the concerned parties before the court considers whether any further intervention is warranted. This distinction is significant: issuing notice on a PIL does not amount to a judicial finding that the allegations are true, nor does it automatically grant the reliefs sought by the petitioner.
Earlier Delhi HC Case
The Madras HC proceedings come amid separate legal action involving Das over the alleged disclosure of his residential address online. In August, Das approached the Delhi High Court against digital media platforms, social-media intermediaries and political commentator Abhijit Iyer-Mitra, alleging that his residential address and personal information had been circulated without authorisation.
The Delhi High Court issued summons to the defendants, while the court was told that some posts disclosing his address had already been removed by X. That case is separate from the Madras HC PIL and does not establish the allegations made in the present petition.
Allegations Need Scrutiny
The latest proceedings also raise broader questions about the limits of online speech when criticism involves judges and judicial institutions. The petitioner is seeking restrictions on Das’s social-media activity, but any such restriction would have to be considered within the applicable legal framework and after the respondents have had an opportunity to present their case. For now, the court has only sought responses and has made no finding on Das’s nationality, identity documents or alleged remarks.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Democratic institutions must be open to criticism, but public debate also demands responsibility, accuracy and respect for the rule of law. At the same time, allegations about a person’s identity, nationality or speech should not be treated as established facts simply because they have been raised in a court petition.
The Madras High Court’s decision to hear responses from all concerned parties underlines the importance of due process before any restrictions are imposed. As the case progresses, how can we protect both the right to question powerful institutions and the responsibility to keep that criticism fair, factual and respectful?
Also Read: How Sandra Pascoe Ortiz Creates Biodegradable Bioplastic From Nopal Cactus Plants
