Tackling Takedowns — The Government, Online Censorship, and the Right to Information

The Editorial Argument

The state’s relationship with online speech has transformed dramatically since the Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India — which struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as unconstitutional for imposing vague and disproportionate restrictions on online speech. A decade later, the government has not abandoned censorship; it has refined it. The instruments have changed — from a blunt criminal provision to more targeted but equally opaque blocking orders under Section 69A of the IT Act, content removal mandates under the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021, and emergency takedown powers. The effect remains the same: speech that discomforts authority disappears, often without explanation.

The Legal Architecture of Online Censorship

Section 69A — Blocking Orders

Under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, the Central Government (through the Ministry of Electronics and IT, MeitY) can direct any intermediary or agency to block online content on grounds of:

• Sovereignty and integrity of India
• Defence of India
• Security of the State
• Friendly relations with foreign States
• Public order
• Preventing incitement to cognisable offences

The problem: Blocking orders under 69A are issued secretly. The affected party (the website, app, or content creator) is not informed; the order is not published; no public statement of reasons is made. The Shreya Singhal ruling upheld Section 69A itself (unlike 66A which it struck down) — but required that blocking orders be subject to a review committee. In practice, this review is opaque and non-adversarial.

Scale: India is among the world’s top five countries for content blocking orders to social media platforms, according to transparency reports published by Google, Meta, and X (Twitter). In 2024, India’s government sent 78,000+ requests for content removal — among the highest globally.

IT Rules 2021 and 2023 Amendments

The IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 and their 2023 amendments require:

• “Significant Social Media Intermediaries” (SSMIs) to appoint grievance officers, nodal officers, and compliance officers in India
• First Originator traceability for encrypted messages — requiring platforms like WhatsApp to break end-to-end encryption to identify message originators (under challenge in court)
• A grievance appellate mechanism — allowing users to appeal content moderation decisions
• Automated content moderation under “due diligence” requirements

The editorial’s critique: The Rules’ grievance mechanism is positioned as user protection, but its effect is government access to content moderation — creating pressure on platforms to remove content even when legal standards for removal are not met.

Emergency Powers and Internet Shutdowns

India leads the world in internet shutdowns — temporary or extended suspension of internet access in specific regions. In 2024, India recorded 80+ internet shutdown orders, far more than any other democracy. The legal basis is primarily:

• Section 144 CrPC (now replaced by BNSS 2023 equivalent provisions) — emergency powers for magistrates
• Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017

The Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) ruling required internet shutdown orders to be published and proportionate — but compliance remains inconsistent across states.

What the Shreya Singhal Standard Requires

The Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) established a proportionality standard for restrictions on online speech:

1. Proportionality: The restriction must be the minimum necessary to achieve a legitimate aim — not a blanket block of an entire platform when a specific URL would suffice
2. Due process: Affected parties must have notice and opportunity to be heard before content is removed (except in genuine emergencies)
3. Judicial oversight: Blocking orders must be subject to independent review, not purely executive discretion

The editorial argues that current practice fails all three tests:

• Proportionality: Entire platforms (apps, YouTube channels, Twitter accounts) are blocked when specific pieces of content are at issue
• Due process: Blocking orders under 69A are secret; content creators rarely receive notice
• Judicial oversight: The review committee is executive, not judicial

The Right to Information Dimension

The right to receive information — a necessary corollary of Article 19(1)(a) — is also at stake. When content is blocked, citizens cannot access:

• Journalism on topics of public interest
• Opposition political speech
• Human rights documentation
• Investigative reports on government policy

The Supreme Court has recognised (since Romesh Thappar v. State of Madras, 1950) that press freedom — and by extension the right to receive diverse information — is essential to democratic life. Online platforms have become the primary medium through which citizens access news, political commentary, and civic information. Blocking them without judicial oversight is a structural threat to democratic discourse.

What Reform Looks Like

1. Publish blocking orders: Section 69A orders should be publicly disclosed (with redactions for genuinely sensitive information) — so affected parties and courts can review them
2. Judicial pre-approval: For non-emergency cases, blocking orders should require judicial authorisation — as with search warrants and wiretapping
3. Proportionality test in law: Statutory requirement that only specific URLs — not entire platforms — are blocked unless there is a compelling reason
4. Independent appeals body: A statutory tribunal with judicial character to hear appeals against blocking orders and content removal mandates

UPSC Relevance

Mains Keywords: Section 69A IT Act, IT Rules 2021, Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015), Article 19(1)(a), internet shutdowns, Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India (2020), content takedowns, SSMI (Significant Social Media Intermediary), proportionality, due process, digital censorship, right to information, MeitY, BNSS 2023

Prelims Facts Corner