Section 69A IT Act, Shreya Singhal Judgment And Blocking Of 59 Apps

While making public its decision to block 59 mobile apps, mostly Chinese, including Tik Tok, Cam Scanner, Xender etc, the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology has mainly referred to its powers under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read with the relevant provisions of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, to block these apps, citing threat to sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of state and public order.The Ministry has taken this decision in view of information available that these applications are engaged in activities which is prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of state and public order. It has also taken into account the recommendation made by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre, Ministry of Home Affairs for 'blocking these malicious apps'. It further states that the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-IN) has also received many representations from citizens regarding security of data and breach of privacy impacting upon public order issues. Finally, it justifies its decision by stating that 'there has been a strong chorus in the public space to take strict action against Apps that harm India's sovereignty as well as the privacy of our citizens.'It is pertinent to note that the Government has only stated through PIB that it has decided to block these applications. Any order made in this regard, if any, is not yet made public. However, the Tik Tok management has already confirmed that the Government of India has issued an "interim order" for the blocking of 59 apps. They stated that they are in the process of complying with it and that they have been invited to meet with concerned government stakeholders for an opportunity to respond and submit clarifications.Meanwhile, the Centre's Department of Telecom (DoT) has reportedly issued a direction to all telecom and internet service providers to immediately block access to all 59 mobile apps banned by the government. Service providers have been asked to immediately comply with the orders and submit compliance reports to the DoT, the reports said quoting sources from Telecom Department.This piece intends to examine the provisions of Information Technology Act and Rules framed under it, which has been invoked by the Government to decide to block 59 mobile applications. Section 69A of Information Technology Act The Section 69A, introduced vide an Amendment Act of 2009 with effect from 27.10.2009, deals with the power to issue directions for blocking for public access of any information through any computer resource. The provision 69A (1) reads as follows: Where the Central Government or any of its officers specially authorised by it in this behalf is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, 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 cognizable offence relating to above, it may subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the Government or intermediary to block for access by the public or cause to be blocked for access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource. The intermediary who fails to comply with the direction issued under the above sub section shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 regulates the procedure in this regard.SC Upheld Validity Of Section 69A and Rules In Shreya Singhal Judgment Apparently, the challenge against this Section 69A was also considered by the Supreme Court in its landmark decision in Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India case. The judgment, delivered by bench comprising Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice R.F. Nariman, had struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, in its entirety, for being violative of Fundamental Rights under Article 19(1)(a) and not saved under Article 19(2).The main grounds of challenge against Section 69A were (1) There is no pre-decisional hearing afforded by the Rules particularly to the "originator" of information, which is defined under Section 2(za) of the Act to mean a person who sends, generates, stores or transmits any electronic message; or causes any electronic message to be sent, generated, stored or transmitted to any other person. (2) Procedural safeguards such as which are provided under Section 95 and 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not available here. (3) The confidentiality provision affects the fundamental rights. While dealing with these contention, the Court observed that that...

Section 69A IT Act, Shreya Singhal Judgment And Blocking Of 59 Apps

Ashok Kini

Tags