A website documenting a street protest went dark within three days of its creation, pulled offline by India's domain registry without a single written reason. The Delhi High Court has now asked the National Internet Exchange of India, better known as NIXI, to explain itself in a case that tests whether an administrative body can suspend a corner of the internet on grounds it invents after the fact.
A Protest Record, Taken Down Without Explanation
Sriram Viswanathan registered chalosansad.in on 19 July 2026 to preserve a sourced account of the NEET-UG paper-leak protests and the "Chalo Sansad" march held in New Delhi the following day. The page carried no advertising, sold nothing, collected no data, and disclaimed any affiliation with organisers or political parties. Three days later, NIXI placed the domain on "serverHold," removing it from the .IN zone file worldwide. There was no notice, no hearing, and no written order. The site simply stopped resolving, and Mr. Viswanathan learned of its disappearance only after the fact.
What followed was a shifting sequence of justifications. First came an "Invalid WHOIS" flag over contact details, corrected the same evening. Then an unnamed "critical keyword." Weeks later, NIXI invoked Clause 3.4.6 of the 2004 .IN Domain Name Policy, which reserves names of constitutional authorities - only to concede that the clause applies solely before registration opens, and that chalosansad.in features on no such list. The registry then pivoted to the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, a colonial-era statute aimed at commercial misuse of official names, backed by a legal opinion it has declined to disclose.
Why the Legal Basis Matters
The Emblems Act exists to stop traders and businesses from exploiting protected names for profit. Its penalty is a token fine, and prosecution requires central government sanction. NIXI's position - that running a "structured, publicly accessible, named website" amounts to a "calling" under the Act - would, if accepted, place every memorial page, campaign site, and personal blog using a protected word at the mercy of registry discretion. "Chalo Sansad," a protest slogan reported widely in the national press, is being treated as though it were a trademark dispute rather than a description of a public event.
India already has a settled procedure for blocking online content: Section 69A of the Information Technology Act and the 2009 Blocking Rules, upheld by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India precisely because they require a written order, committee review, and a hearing. None of that was followed here. NIXI's own Anti-Abuse Policy states that courts and government authorities, not the registry itself, determine whether content is unlawful. The petition also invokes the long-standing principle from Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner that an administrative action must stand or fall on the reasons given at the time - not on explanations assembled afterward.
Selective Enforcement and What Comes Next
At least twelve other .IN domains using "sansad," including commercial ventures, continued operating without interruption while chalosansad.in sat suspended. NIXI has confirmed it never examined them. Its stated response - a blanket review of every domain using "Sansad," "Parliament," or similar words - would extend an unexplained suspension into a far wider exercise of unreviewed power over online speech.
Justice Amit Mahajan issued notice on 14 October 2026 to NIXI, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, and GoDaddy, with the matter next listed for 27 January 2027. The petition seeks restoration of the domain, a declaration that non-commercial information sites fall outside the Emblems Act, and a binding requirement that NIXI publish a procedure guaranteeing notice, reasons, and a hearing before any future suspension. The case will shape how much discretion a registry can exercise over citizens' presence online, and whether due process applies to the infrastructure of the internet itself, not only to the content it carries.