Delhi High Court order sheds light on how the Indian government blocks websites
Ikigai Law
An award-winning law firm helping innovation-led companies find efficient solutions.
Fans of transparency, pay attention! The Delhi High Court has broken the Indian government’s omerta on website blocking. Earlier this month, the Court directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) to provide Tanul Thakur a copy of the order issued to block his satirical website, Dowry Calculator.
“A copy of the original blocking order, after redacting the portion pertaining to the third parties, shall be furnished to the petitioner before May 23rd, 2022. The Committee under the Blocking Rules, 2009 shall furnish a report to this Court as well as to the petitioner within four weeks thereafter,” the Court’s order read. In his plea, Thakur had sought reinstatement of his website which was blocked in 2018.
Okay, some context. Thakur’s website is a satirical take on the practice of dowry in India. The website asks visitors to fill in a number of fields like occupation, education, caste, physical features etc. And based on the responses, it calculates how much dowry a person can expect. The website contains several wise-cracks and pot-shots which make its satirical intent apparent. But MEITY clearly did not get the joke and it blocked the website in 2018 for allegedly violating the Dowry Prohibition Act. More problematically, it did so without providing any notice, hearing or reasoned order to Thakur. And when Thakur filed an RTI seeking a copy of the blocking order, MEITY denied his request by citing the confidentiality requirement under the Blocking Rules.
Despite its humorous origins, this case is significant from a legal perspective as it could have wider impact on website blocking in India. In his plea, Thakur has also sought reading down of the confidentiality requirement under Rule 16 of the Blocking Rules. This Rule was used by MEITY to reject Thakur’s RTI for a copy of the blocking order. Thakur's plea asks the Court to hold that Rule 16 cannot be used to deny information to owners, creators, developers and curators about why their content was blocked.
It is worth noting that the constitutionality of the website blocking process under the Information Technology Act was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2015. However, the Court’s decision was premised on the website blocking process having adequate safeguards in the form of notice, hearing and reasoned orders. In Thakur’s case, these safeguards appear to be absent. If Thakur’s plea seeking reading down of the confidentiality requirement under Rule 16 is accepted, it will improve transparency in the website blocking process. And make it easier for all content creators to access blocking orders and seek redress. But the Delhi High Court is yet to consider this issue. While the Court’s latest order is valuable, how the Court interprets the confidentiality requirement under Rule 16 remains to be seen and may act as a lighthouse in future cases as well.
Read the Delhi High Court’s full order here:
https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/11052022-417894.pdf
Full text of Section 69a of the Information Technology Act:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10190353/
Full text of the IT Blocking rules:
Checkout Ikigai’s article on how Internet and website blocking orders are carried out in different countries:
https://www.ikigailaw.com/internet-takedowns-a-global-perspective/