SECTION 69A
1. Context
After a video of two Manipur women being paraded naked by a mob and sexually assaulted sparked outrage, the Centre has asked Twitter and other social media platforms to take down the video. Tweets of some accounts that had shared the video have been withheld in India, in response to the government’s demand. The Centre has powers to issue content takedown orders to social media companies under Section 69 (A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
2. Section 69A
- Section 69A is a provision in the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) of India, which empowers the government to issue directions for blocking public access to certain online content.
- This section deals with blocking information by intermediaries to maintain public order, prevent incitement to the commission of an offense, and protect the sovereignty and integrity of India, among other reasons.
- The primary objective of Section 69A is to grant the Indian government the authority to take measures in situations where it believes it is necessary to block access to specific online content that is considered harmful or potentially detrimental to national interests.
- The term "intermediaries" referred to in the section includes internet service providers, social media platforms, search engines, and other entities providing online services.
3. Key features of Section 69A:
- Grounds for Blocking: The government can issue directions to block any online information if it deems it necessary or expedient in the interest of the sovereignty, security, defense of India, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offense.
- Designated Officer and Committee: Section 69A provides for the appointment of a Designated Officer by the government, who holds the authority to receive and examine requests for blocking content from various agencies. Additionally, a Review Committee, consisting of government officials, is established to oversee the decisions made by the Designated Officer.
- Procedure for Blocking: When a request is received by the Designated Officer to block specific online content, the officer must assess the request and the grounds provided. The officer issues the blocking order to the intermediary responsible for hosting the content if found valid. The intermediary must comply with the order and disable access to the content within a specified time frame.
- Safeguards and Appeal Mechanism: To prevent misuse of this power, Section 69A provides some safeguards. The affected parties or intermediaries have the right to seek redressal by filing an appeal before the Review Committee against the blocking order. If dissatisfied with the Review Committee's decision, further appeals can be made to the High Court.
- Secrecy and Immunity: The section mandates that the Designated Officer and the Review Committee must keep the requests and decisions confidential. Moreover, these officers and the intermediaries complying with the blocking orders are granted immunity from legal suits and actions.
4. Criticism of the Act
- Section 69A has been the subject of considerable debate and criticism regarding its potential impact on freedom of speech and expression.
- Critics argue that it grants the government extensive powers to censor online content without sufficient oversight and transparency, which could be misused to suppress dissent and stifle legitimate voices.
- Proponents, on the other hand, believe that it is necessary to counter potential threats to national security and public order.
- It is important to note that the Indian government has been actively using Section 69A to block access to various websites and content that it deems problematic or against the interests of the country.
- As with any legislation that involves restrictions on fundamental rights, finding the right balance between security concerns and individual freedoms remains a complex and ongoing challenge.
5. What has Supreme Court said on Section 69A
- Case: Shreya Singhal vs Union of India, 2015 ruling.
- Section 66A: Struck down by the Supreme Court. It punished sending offensive messages through communication services.
- Section 69A: Held "constitutionally valid" by the Supreme Court.
Section 69A Safeguards: Narrowly drawn provision with safeguards:
- Blocking can only happen if the Central Government deems it necessary.
- Necessity must relate to some subjects listed in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
- Reasons for blocking must be recorded in writing, and they can be challenged through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
6. Legal Scrutiny of Section 69A: Twitter vs. MeitY
- July (last year, 2022): Twitter approached Karnataka HC against MeitY's content-blocking orders under Section 69A.
- Allegation: Twitter claimed disproportionate use of power by officials.
- MeitY's Action: IT Ministry wrote to Twitter, asking for compliance or risk losing safe harbour protection.
- Karnataka HC's Ruling: In July (this year), a single-judge bench dismissed Twitter's plea.
- Power to Block: Justice Krishna D Dixit ruled that the Centre can block not just single tweets but entire user accounts under Section 69A(1) and Website Blocking Rules.
|
For Prelims: Section 69 (A), Information Technology Act, 2000, cognizable offense, Section 66A, Section 69A(1), and MeitY.
For Mains: 1. Analyze the provisions and implications of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, in the context of online content regulation and freedom of speech in India. (250 words).
|
Source: The Indian Express
