S.69A IT Act Empowers Centre To Block Entire Intermediary Platform, Not Just Specific Content: Delhi High Court In Telegram Case
While dismissing Telegram's challenge to the temporary blocking of its platform, the Delhi High Court has upheld the Central government's power under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act to block an entire intermediary platform, and not merely specific content hosted on it.
Vacation judge Justice Tejas Karia held that the expression "information" under Section 2(1)(v) of the IT Act has been defined broadly to include "codes", "computer programmes" and "software", and therefore encompasses an application or software platform.
"The blocking power under Section 69A of the IT Act extends beyond individual pieces of content," the bench has ruled.
The case arose after the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology issued an emergency order under Section 69A blocking Telegram in India until June 22, amid paper leak concerns ahead of NEET re-exam.
Telegram asserted that it has put in place proactive measures by taking down various links involving unlawful NEET-related content, including the deployment of artificial intelligence and machine learning tools as proactive measures to address unlawful information on the platform.
The messaging platform asserted that there was no application of mind by the Centre, no independent satisfaction was recorded and the designated officer merely 'parroted' the allegations.
Rejecting these submissions, the Court held that the emergency blocking order did not suffer from non-application of mind.
It observed that the interim order disclosed sufficient reasons in light of its emergency nature and that the statutory procedure under Section 69A and the 2009 Blocking Rules had been followed.
The Court also held that the subsequent final order, passed after hearing Telegram, further elaborated the reasons for continuing the blocking and was consistent with the statutory scheme providing for post-decisional hearing in emergency cases. It observed,
"The Petitioners' contention that the Final Order cannot supplement or supplant the reasons recorded in the Impugned Order is misconceived. Such contention is contrary to the scheme of Section 69A of the IT Act read with the 2009 Rules, which contemplates that, in cases of emergency such as the present one, an interim blocking direction may be issued upon the satisfaction of the Secretary of Respondent No. 1, as to the existence of the conditions specified under Section 69A of the IT Act. Thereafter, a postdecisional hearing is required to be afforded to the intermediary before a final order is passed, either confirming or revoking the interim blocking direction. In such circumstances, the Petitioners' insistence that detailed reasons ought to have been supplied in the Impugned Order itself prior to the grant of an opportunity of hearing is without merit."
On Section 69A, the Court rejected Telegram's contention that the provision is confined to blocking individual posts or messages. It observed,
"An application or platform, in its ordinary and commonly understood sense, is a computer programme or software designed to perform specified functions for an end user. In view of the express inclusion of 'codes', 'computer programmes' and 'software' within the definition of 'information' under Section 2(1)(v) of the IT Act, there is no reason to exclude an application or platform from the ambit of the said expression."
The Court further held that the temporary platform-wide blocking satisfied the constitutional requirement of proportionality.
It noted that the government had initially attempted less restrictive measures by repeatedly directing takedown of individual channels and accounts. However, according to material placed before the authorities, offending entities continued to re-emerge through mirror channels, backup channels, bots and rotated handles, rendering channel-specific enforcement ineffective.
Noting that nearly 2.2 million candidates were scheduled to appear for the NEET re-exam, the Court held that the Centre's action was justified.
Case Title: TELEGRAM FZ LLC & ANR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS