The Delhi High Court has issued notice to the National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) over its suspension of chalosansad.in, a website documenting protests against the NEET-UG paper leak, three days after the domain was registered. In an order dated October 14, 2026, Justice Amit Mahajan directed the respondents to file their replies, if any, before the next hearing.
According to the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), NIXI suspended the domain on July 22, 2026 without prior notice, a hearing or a written order. The website’s owner, Sriram Viswanathan, has challenged the suspension in a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. The respondents include NIXI, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), the Ministry of Consumer Affairs (MCA) and GoDaddy. The court will hear the matter next on January 27, 2027.
What was on the website: Viswanathan registered chalosansad.in through GoDaddy, an accredited .IN registrar, on July 19, 2026, for one year. The single-page website documented the July 20 “Chalo Sansad” march in New Delhi against the NEET-UG paper leak. The national press had reported the event under the same name.
The page linked every factual statement to a published source. It carried no advertisements, collected no user data, sold no products or services, and did not solicit funds. It also explicitly stated that it was not affiliated with the protest organisers, the Government of India or any political party.
NIXI placed the domain on “serverHold” on July 22, 2026, alongside registry-imposed status locks. This removed the domain from the .IN zone file, preventing the website from resolving. Viswanathan subsequently challenged the suspension, seeking restoration of the domain and disclosure of the records and reasons behind the decision.
Why NIXI suspended the domain: NIXI initially attributed the suspension to invalid WHOIS contact details. However, after Viswanathan corrected the details and submitted a masked copy of his Aadhaar, the domain remained suspended. NIXI subsequently offered different explanations, including restrictions on the use of “Sansad” and the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950.
The four explanations cited by NIXI were:
- July 22, 2026 — “Invalid WHOIS”: The registrar’s dashboard displayed this reason, referring to the domain’s contact details. Viswanathan corrected the details that evening. NIXI later confirmed that KYC verification was complete.
- July 24, 2026 — “Critical keyword”: NIXI said the domain contained a “critical keyword” but did not identify the keyword or specify the rule involved. It asked Viswanathan to justify the domain name and its intended use. He replied on the same day.
- August 14, 2026 — Reserved category: In response to a legal notice, NIXI said “Sansad” fell within the reserved category of “Constitutional Authorities” under Clause 3.4.6 of the 2004 .IN Domain Name Policy Framework. It described the suspension as the result of a standard, system-generated compliance check.
- September 2, 2026 — Emblems Act: NIXI acknowledged that Clause 3.4.6 applied before registration opened and that chalosansad.in did not appear on a reserved list. It then invoked the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, relying on a legal opinion dated August 29, 2026. NIXI asked Viswanathan to produce Central Government permission within seven days, failing which it would consider deregistering the domain without further reference.
On September 18, 2026, NIXI said it did not claim powers under the Emblems Act and acted under its contractual terms. However, it declined to disclose the legal opinion or commit to suspending further action. It said it would restore the domain only after Viswanathan produced Central Government permission.
Why this matters: NIXI’s domain-registration policies have raised questions about the requirements individuals must meet to establish an online presence using a .IN domain. Its identity-verification requirements, for instance, have included documentation requirements for foreign nationals and additional checks for domain registrants. While these measures can help identify domain holders in cases of cybercrime, they also determine the compliance burden for people seeking to register and maintain a domain.
However, the question in this case goes beyond registration requirements to the authority NIXI can exercise over domains that are already registered. A domain registry manages the technical infrastructure that allows domain names to resolve to websites. Suspending a domain can therefore make an entire website inaccessible, rather than remove a specific post or piece of content.
The case also raises questions about the distinction between domain administration and decisions on the legality of online material. NIXI’s Anti-Abuse Policy states that courts and competent government authorities determine whether content is illegal.
The petition asks the Delhi High Court to examine whether NIXI can suspend a domain on the basis of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, and whether it should provide prior notice, reasons and an opportunity to be heard before suspending registered .IN domains. The court’s eventual decision could clarify the limits of the registry’s powers and the procedural safeguards available to domain owners.
Also read:
- MeitY seeks a root server for India from ICANN for a ‘resilient internet system’
- Is TRAI looking at NIXI to understand the internet exchange point ecosystem? Legal Researcher Gurshabad Grover #NAMA
The post NIXI removed website on NEET protest 3 days after it went live without notice appeared first on MEDIANAMA.