Context
- Recently, the Union Government directed the blocking of access to Telegram under Section 69A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, citing concerns related to national security, public order, and misuse of the platform for unlawful activities.
- Telegram challenged the blocking order before the Delhi High Court, arguing that the restrictions violate the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
- The case has once again brought Section 69A of the IT Act and the scope of government powers over online content into focus.
About the Section 69A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000
- Power to Block: It authorizes the Central Government to direct intermediaries or government agencies to block public access to any information generated, transmitted, received, stored, or hosted in any computer resource (including applications and websites).
- Grounds for Blocking: Blocking orders can only be issued if the government is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient in the interest of:
- Sovereignty and integrity of India
- Defence of India
- Security of the State
- Friendly relations with foreign States
- Public order
- Preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to the above.
- Procedural Safeguards: Orders must adhere to the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access to Information by the Public) Rules, 2009.
Constitutional Provisions Involved
- Article 19(1)(a): Protects freedom of speech and expression. Restrictions or blocking orders under Section 69A directly interfere with this right.
- Article 19(1)(g): Guarantees the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business. Digital platform bans affect creators, educators, and entrepreneurs utilizing these platforms to maintain contact with subscribers and earn a livelihood.
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000
- Section 66A was introduced through the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.
- It criminalized the sending of certain types of messages through a computer resource or communication device.
- The provision came into force on 27 October 2009.
Section 79 of the IT Act: ‘Safe Harbour’ Provision
- Definition: Section 79 establishes an intermediary safe harbour provision, meaning online platforms are generally not held liable for third-party content or data hosted by them.
- Conditions: To qualify for immunity, intermediaries must:
- Exercise due diligence.
- Follow the Information Technology Rules, 2021.
- Act quickly to remove or disable access to illegal content upon receiving actual knowledge of it.
Important Judicial Precedent
- Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India In this landmark case, the Supreme Court examined indefinite blanket bans on internet services. The Court held that freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)) and the freedom to practice any profession/trade over the internet (Article 19(1)(g)) are constitutionally protected.
- The Court concluded that internet restriction orders must meet the proportionality test:
- They must be strictly necessary.
- They must deploy the least restrictive measures available.
- They must be open to judicial review.
- In Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015), declared Section 66A unconstitutional (on the grounds of violating the freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of IC).
With reference to Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, consider the following statements:
1. It empowers only the Supreme Court to order the blocking of online content.
2. It authorizes the Central Government to direct intermediaries to block public access to information.
3. Blocking orders may be issued in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) 2 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer: C
• Statement 1 is incorrect: Section 69A of the IT Act authorises the Central/Union Government (not exclusively the Supreme Court) to issue blocking orders.
• Statement 2 is correct: It gives the government the power to direct intermediaries to block public access to online information.
• Statement 3 is correct: Blocking orders can be issued if it is necessary in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India (among other specified grounds like the security of the state, public order, etc.).