Madras High Court Issues Notice on Plea Seeking Probe into Journalist Saurav Das’s Background, Blocking of Social Media Accounts

Yugcharan News / 30-10-2026

The Madras High Court on Friday, October 30, issued notice on a petition seeking an inquiry into the background and antecedents of journalist and Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) spokesperson Saurav Das. The petition also seeks directions to block his social media accounts on Instagram and X, formerly Twitter, over allegations that he posted derogatory statements against the judiciary and judges of the Supreme Court.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan issued notice to the concerned authorities and other respondents, seeking their response to the pleas raised in the petition. The court has made the notice returnable in six weeks and adjourned the matter for further consideration.

The petition, filed by Ganesh Kumar, a resident of Kanchipuram district, seeks a detailed and fair investigation into Das’s background. It also requests action that includes cancellation of his passport and Aadhaar card, along with directions to the government to restrict access to his social media accounts.

The allegations and requests made in the petition have not been established as findings of the court. By issuing notice, the High Court has sought responses from the respondents; the order does not amount to a determination that the allegations against Das are true or that the requested measures should be granted.

High Court Issues Notice to Government Authorities and Social Media Platforms

The Madras High Court issued notice to several government departments, officials and representatives of social media platforms in connection with the petition.

The respondents include the Regional Passport Officer in Chennai, the Chairperson of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the Union Home Ministry, the Foreign Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs and the Secretary of the Ministry of Law and Justice.

The Secretary of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has also been named as a respondent. Grievance officers representing X and Instagram are among those who have been asked to respond.

The petition seeks action through multiple government agencies because its requested measures concern identity documents, passport-related matters, online content and the regulation of social media accounts.

The notice gives the respondents an opportunity to place their responses before the court. The matter is expected to proceed after the prescribed response period, subject to further directions from the Bench.

The court has not, according to the supplied report, issued a final order directing the cancellation of Das’s passport or Aadhaar card, nor has it ordered the blocking of his social media accounts.

Petitioner Seeks Detailed Inquiry into Saurav Das’s Background

Ganesh Kumar’s petition seeks directions to the government to conduct what it describes as a detailed, thorough and fair investigation into the background of the individuals concerned.

One of the principal requests is that authorities take necessary action against Saurav Das, including cancellation of his passport and Aadhaar card.

The petition also seeks intervention by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to block Das’s Instagram and X accounts. In addition, it asks the authorities to prevent him from making statements that the petitioner characterises as derogatory towards the judiciary and judges of the Supreme Court.

These requests form part of the relief sought by the petitioner and remain subject to judicial consideration.

The filing follows the petitioner’s stated concern about Das’s public comments concerning the judiciary. However, the allegations have not been established through a final judicial determination in the proceedings described in the report.

The High Court’s notice indicates that the respondents will have an opportunity to address the requests and the grounds on which the petition has been filed.

Advocate Argues That Authorities Failed to Act on Complaint

When the matter came up for hearing on Friday, advocate B. Jagannath appeared on behalf of the petitioner and argued that an inquiry into Das’s antecedents was necessary.

Jagannath told the court that Das had allegedly been making derogatory statements about the judiciary. He also submitted that a complaint had previously been made to the relevant authorities but that no action had been taken.

Explaining the reason for approaching the High Court, the advocate said: “The manner in which he speaks about the judiciary, this is not the way to speak. I had given a complaint to the authorities, but no action had been taken. So I'm filing this petition.”

The submission reflected the petitioner’s position that the authorities should examine the allegations and consider the action sought in the petition.

The court subsequently issued notice to the respondents. The detailed arguments of the respondents and their responses to the allegations were not included in the supplied report.

The case will now proceed through the judicial process, during which the court may consider the submissions made by the parties and determine what further directions, if any, are warranted.

Petition Seeks Restrictions on Social Media Accounts

An important aspect of the petition concerns the requested blocking of Das’s accounts on Instagram and X.

The petitioner has asked the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to take steps to restrict access to the accounts and prevent the publication of statements described in the petition as derogatory towards the judiciary and Supreme Court judges.

The grievance officers of both platforms have been named among the respondents, alongside government officials and departments.

The request places questions concerning online expression and the protection of the judiciary before the court. However, the supplied report does not indicate that the High Court has accepted the petitioner’s allegations or issued a final ruling on the requested restrictions.

The petition’s prayers must be distinguished from the court’s action on Friday. At this stage, the Bench has issued notice and allowed the matter to proceed for responses from the respondents.

Any eventual decision on the requested restrictions will depend on the proceedings and the court’s subsequent orders.

Passport and Aadhaar Cancellation Also Sought

The petitioner has additionally requested action concerning Das’s passport and Aadhaar card.

The Regional Passport Officer in Chennai and the UIDAI Chairperson have been named among the respondents, enabling the court proceedings to address the requests directed at the relevant authorities.

The petition seeks cancellation of the documents as part of the broader action requested against Das. The supplied report does not state that either document has been cancelled or that the court has directed the authorities to cancel them.

The request remains one of the issues requiring consideration in the case.

The inclusion of the Union Home Ministry, the Ministry of External Affairs and the Ministry of Law and Justice further reflects the range of authorities from whom the petitioner is seeking action or a response.

No final determination on these requests was reported following Friday’s hearing.

Case Adjourned for Six Weeks

The Madras High Court has issued notice returnable in six weeks and adjourned the matter. The respondents are therefore expected to respond in accordance with the court’s directions before the case proceeds further.

The next stage will involve consideration of the responses and any further submissions made by the parties.

The case is titled Ganesh Kumar v. The Regional Passport Officer and is registered as Writ Petition No. 44399 of 2026.

The proceedings are being heard by Chief Justice S.A. Dharmadhikari and Justice G. Arul Murugan.

The petition raises requests for an investigation into Saurav Das’s background, action concerning his passport and Aadhaar card, and restrictions on his social media accounts. These remain requests made by the petitioner rather than measures that the court has finally ordered.

With notice issued and the hearing adjourned for six weeks, the matter will continue through the judicial process as the respondents are given an opportunity to address the allegations and relief sought.

The outcome remains pending, and no final ruling on the petitioner’s requests was reported as of October 30, 2026.