📱 Part 7.7

Writs for Content Blocking & Removal

"Section 69A IT Act + Shreya Singhal Framework"

Master writs for content blocking, challenging unlawful takedowns, IT Rules 2021, intermediary liability, and safe harbor provisions.

7.1

Section 69A — Blocking Framework

📖 Section 69A IT Act
Power to Block Content
"Where Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence... it may direct any agency of Government or intermediary to block for access by the public..."
📋 S.69A Procedure (IT Blocking Rules, 2009)

1. Designated Officer examines complaint/reference

2. Committee of Secretaries reviews

3. Intermediary given notice and hearing (except emergency)

4. Reasoned order passed

5. Review Committee may reconsider

7.2

Shreya Singhal — The Landmark

Shreya Singhal v. Union of India
(2015) 5 SCC 1
Held: Section 66A struck down as unconstitutional (vague, overbroad). Section 69A upheld BUT procedural safeguards mandatory. Originator must be heard before blocking. "Unlawful" in S.79 means court order or government order — not intermediary's own decision. Significance: Foundation of content blocking jurisprudence.
7.3

Challenging Blocking Orders

🎯 Writ Grounds Against Blocking

1. Procedural violation: No notice/hearing to originator (Shreya Singhal)

2. Unreasoned order: No reasons given for blocking

3. Overbroad: Entire website blocked instead of specific URL

4. Not within S.69A grounds: Content doesn't fall within specified grounds

5. Fundamental rights: Article 19(1)(a) — freedom of speech

Writ: Certiorari to quash + Mandamus to unblock

7.4

IT Rules 2021 — Intermediary Due Diligence

📋 Key Obligations

Rule 3(1)(d): Remove content within 36 hours of government order

Rule 3(2)(b): Publish grievance redressal mechanism

Rule 4: Significant Social Media Intermediaries (SSMI) — additional compliance

Safe Harbor (S.79): Lost if due diligence not followed or court/govt order not complied

🎯 Key Takeaways — Part 7.7

  • S.69A: Central Govt can block content for sovereignty, security, public order, etc.
  • Shreya Singhal: S.66A struck down; S.69A upheld with procedural safeguards
  • Originator must be heard before blocking (except emergency)
  • Writ grounds: No hearing, unreasoned, overbroad, not within S.69A grounds
  • IT Rules 2021: 36-hour compliance; grievance mechanism mandatory
  • S.79 safe harbor: Lost if due diligence not followed
  • Article 19(1)(a): Blocking must be reasonable restriction under 19(2)
  • Writ: Certiorari to quash blocking + Mandamus to unblock

📝 Assessment — Part 7.7 (10 Questions)

1. S.69A blocking grounds include:
S.69A specifies sovereignty, security, public order, friendly relations, cognizable offences.
2. Shreya Singhal struck down:
Shreya Singhal struck down S.66A as unconstitutional — vague and overbroad.
3. Shreya Singhal on S.69A:
S.69A was upheld but procedural safeguards — hearing to originator — mandatory.
4. IT Rules 2021 — content removal timeline:
Rule 3(1)(d) requires removal within 36 hours of government order.
5. S.79 safe harbor lost when:
Safe harbor is conditional — lost if due diligence not followed.
6. Writ to quash blocking order:
Certiorari quashes illegal/void orders.
7. Overbroad blocking means:
Overbroad = blocking more than necessary — violates proportionality.
8. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees:
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression.
9. Emergency blocking under S.69A:
Emergency provisions allow blocking without prior hearing — post-facto review required.
10. "Unlawful" in S.79 per Shreya Singhal:
Shreya Singhal: "Unlawful" requires court order or government notification — not intermediary's judgment.