Twitter’s petition on Section 69A of the IT Act

Source: The post is based on the article “Twitter’s petition on Section 69A of the IT Act” published in The Hindu on 11th July 2022

What is the News?

Twitter has moved the Karnataka High Court seeking to set aside multiple blocking orders of the Central government.

According to Twitter, blocking orders were procedurally and substantially non-compliant with Section 69A of the Information Technology Act(IT Act).

What is Section 69A of the Information Technology Act(IT Act)?

Click here to read about it

What is the procedure for executing the order under Section 69A of the IT Act?

The procedures for executing the provisions of the act are enlisted in the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. 

It entails that a government-designated officer along with an examination committee assesses the content in question within 48 hours of receiving the takedown request. 

It must enable an opportunity for the author or originator of the content to provide clarifications. 

The recommendations are then sent to the Secretary of the Dept of Information Technology for approval to forward a request to the social media intermediary for restricting access. 

Emergency provisions stipulate that clarification be sought after the content has been blocked for specific reasons but within 48 hours. They can be revoked after due Examination.

Why has Twitter moved the Karnataka High Court against blocking orders?

Twitter has moved the court due to following reasons: 

Firstly, Absence of a case-specific rationale for blocking content and accounts: Twitter holds that the government has been merely reproducing the words of Section 69A as reasons for blocking URLs and accounts. The government has allegedly not shown why the restrictions were necessary in the interest of public order or for any other reason. 

– For instance, the Supreme Court’s ruling in The Superintendent, Central Prison, Fatehgarh vs Ram Manohar Lohia(1960) held that restrictions made in the public interest must possess a reasonable connection to the objective being achieved. They need to be set aside should the co-relation be far-fetched, hypothetical or too remote in other words, bearing no proximity to public order.

Secondly, Not according to the originators of the content the mandatory hearing: The Supreme Court had upheld the constitutionality of Section 69A in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India(2012) because of its adherence to accord a hearing to the author of the content as well as the intermediary. 

– This hearing is guaranteed under Rule 8 of the procedural norms but Twitter stated that the government has neither provided any notice nor any hearing.