PwC, KPMG, Deloitte block Cockroach Janta Party websites citing security. Legal uncertainty under IT Act Section 69A creates regulatory and talent risks for audit firms. Delhi HC hearing in July will test private blocking limits.
Alpha Score of 67 reflects moderate overall profile with moderate momentum, strong value, moderate quality, strong sentiment.
Employees at the India offices of PwC, KPMG, and Deloitte found themselves unable to access two websites of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) from company networks this week. The sites – cockroachjantaparty.org and cjpparty.com – were blocked with a message citing an “information security risk assessment done.”
The move is not an isolated IT policy tweak. It exposes a sector-wide practice that carries legal, reputational, and operational implications for the audit and consulting industry. Investors tracking these firms, either as private equity exposures or as bellwethers for corporate governance, need to understand what this blocking reveals about their risk posture.
Multiple mid- and senior-level executives at the three firms told Mint that the CJP websites would not load on office intranets. One senior executive said the block appeared after a security assessment. A mid-level executive at a second firm confirmed that both URLs were inaccessible. All three spoke on condition of anonymity.
The same executive noted that other websites containing the word “cockroach” were also blocked. Websites of mainstream political parties remained accessible on the same networks.
PwC and Deloitte did not respond to queries from Mint. A KPMG spokesperson declined to comment. In contrast, employees at e-commerce and manufacturing companies could access the CJP sites from office networks, according to Mint’s reporting. This divergence points to industry-specific IT policies rather than a blanket government-level block.
The government, however, did block the CJP account on X (formerly Twitter) under Section 69A of the IT Act, citing national security. The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to lift that ban and adjourned the case until July.
The mid-level executive quoted by Mint said: “All the top audit firms are incredibly strict about what websites are accessible on the company intranet. … It’s not far-fetched to assume these companies work on a whitelist rather than a blacklist.”
A whitelist, or allow list, is a pre-approved set of URLs that employees can access. Everything else is blocked by default. This approach is common in industries with high data sensitivity – audit and consulting firms handle confidential client financials, which makes strict web access a standard security measure.
The risk is that whitelisting can be used to block content that the firm deems politically inconvenient, not just security threats. The CJP is a satirical political movement born out of Chief Justice Surya Kant’s “cockroach” remark during a Supreme Court hearing on May 15. The remark went viral amid student anger over the NEET exam leak and board results. Blocking its websites may be interpreted as a precaution against partisan online activity, yet it invites scrutiny under India’s IT Act.
Under Section 69A of the IT Act, only the government can order blocking of URLs for reasons of sovereignty, security, or public order. Private companies have no such power. Yet firms routinely block sites under their own terms of service.
N. S. Nappinai, senior advocate at the Supreme Court and founder of Cyber Saathi, said companies can legitimately decide what employees access on company time and resources. Security is a valid justification, especially when sites could mimic originals or pose phishing risks.
Dr. Pavan Duggal, senior advocate at the Supreme Court and chairman of the International Commission on Cyber Law, disagreed. He argued that companies misuse grey areas in the IT Act to clamp down on employee access.
This legal uncertainty creates a risk for audit and consulting firms. An employee or activist could challenge the blocking in court. A ruling against the company could force policy changes, retroactive relisting, or compensation.
The blocking is confined, so far, to the three named firms: PwC, KPMG, and Deloitte. They are among the Big Four audit networks in India. Their IT policies are likely consistent across the industry. Ernst & Young (EY) was not mentioned in the Mint report, yet given the competitive and regulatory symmetry, similar whitelisting practices can be inferred.
The implication for investors is threefold:
The court adjourned the CJP X account case until July. The outcome will shape the legal framework for private-sector blocking. If the court upholds the government’s ban, it may embolden companies to continue whitelist-only policies. If it strikes it down, the legal basis for private blocking becomes weaker, even if companies cite security.
For now, the blocking of CJP websites by PwC, KPMG, and Deloitte is a signal to investors that these firms prioritize security control over free expression. That is not inherently wrong. In a regulatory grey zone, however, it creates exposure that is not priced into their practice risk assessments.
For broader context on how corporate governance and regulatory shifts affect Indian markets, see our stock market analysis section.
Prepared with AlphaScala research tooling and grounded in primary market data: live prices, fundamentals, SEC filings, hedge-fund holdings, and insider activity. Each story is checked against AlphaScala publishing rules before release. Educational coverage, not personalized advice.