A complete of 1,482 web sites or URLs had been blocked by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTY) from January to March 2022, revealed an RTI question filed by Software Freedom Legal Central (SFLC.in), a authorized coverage agency. The blocked websites embody all varieties of URLs resembling webpages, web sites and pages on social media platforms.
These web sites had been blocked citing Section 69A of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000. The Section states that any company of the federal government or any middleman may be requested to dam the entry of knowledge for the general public “in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence relating to above”.
“Section 69A of the Information Technology Act has been used time and again by the Government to censor content, often in violation of the provisions of the section which mention limited grounds for blocking of access to any information,” stated Prasanth Sugathan, Legal Director at SFLC.in.
The variety of URLs blocked below Section 69A “are 9, 21 , 362 , 62 , 471 , 500 , 633 , 1385 , 2799 , 3635 , 9849 , 6096 and 1482 (till March 2022) during the year 2010 , 2011 , 2012 , 2013 , 2014 , 2015 , 2016 , 2017 , 2018 , 2019 , 2020 , 2021 and 2022 (till March 2022 ) respectively,” the RTI accessed by indianexpress.com revealed.
Under Rule 16 of Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information Public ) Rules, 2009, strict confidentiality must be maintained relating to all of the requests and complaints acquired. This signifies that the federal government can block any URL with out offering any substantial info, within the bigger curiosity of nationwide safety.
However, Sugathan believes that “the confidentiality clause in the blocking rules results in all orders and information regarding such blocking remaining out of the purview of the public. Often users, whose content is taken down, are also not informed and this essentially goes against the rationale of the Apex Court in upholding the section and the rules in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India.”
