There's probably a scenario where the Indian courts claim that being able to access it whatsoever within the country means they haven't complied with the order (ie. VPN-based access), but this is probably more because it's easier for Legal to hit 'ban account' than do the work of asking engineers to implement geo-based account bans (this is assuming there aren't already geo-based account bans on Twitter; I can't find any reference to one).
AFAIK no Indian court has complained about VPN access to twitter accounts. The parent seems to be right, there seems to be an overreaction by Twitter to an issue under consideration, not even completed. Twitter might have, as you said, just said that it is easier to suspend the account rather than bothering with geo-based blocking.
In this case, the Delhi High Court hasn't even asked Twitter to ban the account. Instead it "rejected" a plea to ban the account. Twitter definitely censored Sci-Hub on its own volition.
Quoting from the article:
"In December, academic publishers Elsevier, Wiley, and the American Chemical Society filed a suit with the Delhi High Court, asking Indian internet service providers to block Sci-Hub and similar site Libgen. The court rejected the publishers’ requests that the sites be blocked immediately, instead declaring it an “issue of public importance” and allowing time for the scientific community to weigh in."
There are geo based account bans. I have seen a few from India with a message similar to "This account has been withheld in India due to a legal request"
But reading from the article it is at least clear that the Courts "rejected" a request to ban Sci-Hub and instead gave time to the Scientific community to figure out a way forward. I don't see where you get that the Court in India was in favour of banning Sci-Hub.
Quoting:
"In December, academic publishers Elsevier, Wiley, and the American Chemical Society filed a suit with the Delhi High Court, asking Indian internet service providers to block Sci-Hub and similar site Libgen. The court rejected the publishers’ requests that the sites be blocked immediately, instead declaring it an “issue of public importance” and allowing time for the scientific community to weigh in."
