Logo

Defender of your Digital Freedom

Home > Freedom of Speech > DEITY says 2341 URLs were blocked in 2014; refuses to reveal more

DEITY says 2341 URLs were blocked in 2014; refuses to reveal more

Apr 03,2015 | 10:10 am

On March 9, 2015, SFLC.in requested the following information from the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DEITY) under the Right to Information Act, 2005:

  • Number of URL-blocking orders issued by DEITY in 2012, 2013 and 2014

  • Number of URL-blocking orders issued by DEITY in 2012, 2013 and 2014 based on:

    • Requests from Government departments/agencies

    • Court orders

    • Requests from private parties

  • List of URLs blocked in 2012, 2013 and 2014, along with copies of relevant orders

  • List of URLs blocked in 2012, 2013 and 2014, whose blocking orders were reviewed by the Review Committee, along with the respective dates on which said reviews were carried out

A copy of the application can be accessed here.

In a response (dated March 23, 2015) received from DEITY, it was revealed that the following numbers of URL-blocking orders were issued in 2012, 2013 and 2014 as specified:

  • 708 (2012)

  • 1349 (2013)

  • 2341 (2014)

It was also stated in the response that “barring few numbers, all URLs were blocked on the orders of the Court” (sic).

Further, the response stated that the following numbers of URLs were unblocked pursuant to orders by the Review Committee in 2012, 2013 and 2014 as specified:

  • 4 (2012)

  • 0 (2013)

  • 32 (2014)

The identities of blocked/unblocked URLs, copies of blocking orders, and concrete statistics on URLs blocked pursuant to Government/private requests and court orders were not provided, citing Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, which requires requests, complaints and actions relating to URL-blocking to be kept strictly confidential.

The full text of DEITY’s response can be accessed here.

Rule 16, by mandating strict confidentiality in URL-blocking, shrouds India’s content-blocking regime in extreme secrecy. As a result, citizens are prevented from procuring essential information such as definitive lists of blocked URLs, or reasons behind specific blocks. Even requests for such information made under the Right to Information Act are routinely turned down, notwithstanding the fact that the provisions of the Act override all conflicting provisions in any other legislation (see Section 22, RTI Act).

The Government’s insistence on confidentiality assumes further intrigue, considering the Supreme Court’s observations in its recent judgement in the matter of Shreya Singhal and Ors. v. Union of India. While adjudicating on the constitutional challenge to Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, the Court invited attention to several safeguards incorporated into Section 69A – one amongst them being that reasons behind blocking orders are to be recorded in writing in the orders themselves so that they may be challenged by means of writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (writ jurisdiction of High Courts). However, one fails to understand how such a writ petition might be filed so long as the blocking orders are kept confidential. Rule 16 therefore renders an important safeguard in the content-blocking process ineffective.

In summation, there is an immediate need for the Government to reconsider its stance on transparency in URL-blocking. Not only does opacity make for bad governance, but it also restricts the citizens’ right to receive and impart information as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. SFLC.in has already filed an appeal regarding DEITY’s refusal to part with substantial information on URL-blocking, but the need for a more comprehensive legislative change in this regard remains nevertheless.

Representation sent to Arunchal Pradesh

A newspaper article dated 30.10.2020 published in Telegraph India titled ‘Arunachal Internet Bar to curb Cheating’ stated that Arunachal Pradesh government will be ...

Event – Creating Safe Spaces Online

SFLC.in in collaboration with Trust Law, Thompson Reuters Foundation is hosting a 2 day event on 'Creating Safe Spaces Online' on 21st-22nd ...

SFLC.in writes to the Criminal Reforms Committee

SFLC.in sent its recommendations to the Criminal Reforms Committee on 16th September 2020. Our recommendations covered criminal sanctions against free speech ...

Representation sent to Government of Rajasthan to publish orders regarding suspension of Internet services.

SFLC.in wrote to the Home Secretary, Government of Rajasthan as well the District Collectors of Udaipur, Dungarpur, Pratapgarh and Banswara ...

Letter to the Standing Committee on Information Technology on Content Moderation by Social Media Platforms

SFLC.in has written to the Standing Committee on Information Technology chaired by Dr. Shashi Tharoor on the Content Moderation policies ...

Collective statement to urge the Government of Jammu and Kashmir to restore High-Speed internet.

SFLC.IN along with a coalition of non-profit organisations and civil society groups voice their concerns urging the Jammu and Kashmir ...

SFLC.in sent a representation to the IT standing committee

SFLC.in had written to all the members of the IT committee chaired by Dr. Shashi Tharoor on 8th June 2020 highlighting ...

Event – Reconciling State’s interests with a digital life

SFLC.in in collaboration with Live Law is hosting a panel to commemorate an entire year of communication block in The ...

SFLC.in wrote to the IT committee on issue of women saftey in Digital Spaces

SFLC.in wrote to the Standing Committee on Information Technology chaired by Dr. Shashi Tharoor on the issue of women safety ...

Analysis of the recent app blocking

MEITY on 29th June 2020 blocked 59 apps using Section 69A of the Information Technology Act coupled with the Blocking Rules ...