Cockroach Janta Party X Account Unblocked Delhi High Court Neet Dharmendra Pradhan Abhijeet Dipke

The Delhi High Court allowed the unblocking of Cockroach Janta Party’s X account after the Centre Tuesday conceded that it has no objection to the unblocking.

The government orally added that it wants people to be more “circumspect”. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government, told Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, “I have no difficulty (with unblocking of the account). I just want everyone to be more circumspect.”

The concession from the government comes with the conclusion of National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test Undergraduate (NEET-UG) re-examination.

SG Mehta said, “It was blocked at a time when NEET examination was to take place. Lakhs of students were to appear… several posts (on X) which would’ve created chaos among students and parents. Now the examination is over.”

The re-examination was necessitated after the original NEET-UG 2026 was cancelled following allegations of a paper leak — an issue that became a flashpoint for public anger and triggered a protest movement, including demonstrations by the newly formed CJP, which has been demanding the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke had moved court challenging the blocking of the CJP’s X handle, which, as first reported by The Indian Express, was withheld in India on May 21 after a direction from the Centre following inputs from the Intelligence Bureau (IB) that raised “national security concerns”.

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) asked X to withhold the account under Section 69(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This provision allows the central government to restrict public access to information in the interest of sovereignty, security, public order, or preventing incitement to offences.

On May 29, the Delhi HC had refused to immediately order for the unblocking of the X account and had relegated Dipke to a government’s review committee to challenge it.

Senior advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for Dipke, had insisted that the court may pass directions to unblock the account and can further direct to keep alleged objectionable tweets blocked, but the court at the time had refused.

Instead the court had relegated Dipke to a review committee, which, as per Rule 14 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, is mandated to meet “at least once in two months and record its findings on whether the directions issued under these rules” are as per provisions of Section 69A of the Act.

If the review committee is of the opinion that the directions are not in accordance with the provisions, it is also empowered to set aside such directions and issue orders for unblocking.