⚖️
CyberLaw
Academy
60:00
Module 8: Final Assessment
Website Blocking, Intermediary Law & Platform Liability
📝 60 Questions
⏱️ 60 Minutes
✅ 70% Passing (42/60)
Part 8.1: Section 69A — Blocking Powers (Q1-8)
Q1
Section 69A of the IT Act was inserted by:
Original IT Act, 2000
IT Amendment Act, 2008
IT Rules 2021
DPDP Act, 2023
Section 69A was inserted by IT (Amendment) Act, 2008.
Q2
Which authority has power to issue blocking directions under Section 69A?
State Governments
District Magistrates
Central Government or authorized officers
Any police officer
Only Central Government or specially authorized officers can issue blocking directions.
Q3
Which is NOT a valid ground for blocking under Section 69A?
Sovereignty and integrity of India
Security of the State
Public order
Individual defamation
Section 69A grounds mirror Article 19(2) but exclude individual defamation.
Q4
In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court:
Struck down Section 69A
Struck down both Section 66A and 69A
Struck down Section 66A but upheld Section 69A
Upheld both Section 66A and 69A
SC struck down S.66A as unconstitutional but upheld S.69A with adequate safeguards.
Q5
Chinese apps like TikTok were banned in India in 2020 under:
Section 66A IT Act
Section 69A IT Act
Section 79 IT Act
DPDP Act 2023
224+ Chinese apps were blocked under Section 69A citing national security.
Q6
Penalty for intermediary non-compliance with Section 69A:
Fine only
Imprisonment up to 7 years and fine
Warning letter
No penalty specified
Section 69A(3) provides imprisonment up to 7 years and fine.
Q7
Section 69A derives constitutional validity from:
Article 19(2) — reasonable restrictions
Article 21 — right to life
Article 14 — equality
Article 32 — remedies
S.69A grounds align with "reasonable restrictions" under Article 19(2).
Q8
Under 2025 IT Rules Amendment, content removal intimation requires:
Any government employee
Deputy Secretary level
Joint Secretary or above / DIG for police
Inspector level officer
2025 Amendment requires Joint Secretary (or above) or DIG (or above) for police.
Part 8.2: Blocking Rules 2009 (Q9-17)
Q9
Designated Officer under Blocking Rules 2009 must be at least:
Under Secretary rank
Joint Secretary rank
Secretary rank
Deputy Secretary
Designated Officer must be Joint Secretary rank per Rule 3.
Q10
Under Rule 11, blocking requests must be decided within:
24 hours
48 hours
7 working days
30 days
Rule 11 mandates disposal within 7 working days maximum.
Q11
Review Committee under Rule 14 must meet:
At least once in two months
Weekly
Monthly
Quarterly
Rule 14 requires Review Committee to meet at least once in two months.
Q12
Rule 16 of Blocking Rules 2009 mandates:
Public disclosure of blocked URLs
Notice to content creators
Parliamentary oversight
Strict confidentiality
Rule 16 requires strict confidentiality for all requests and actions.
Q13
Intermediaries must acknowledge blocking directions within:
1 hour
2 hours
24 hours
48 hours
Rule 13 requires acknowledgment within 2 hours of receipt.
Q14
Emergency blocking must be placed before Committee within:
48 hours
7 days
24 hours
2 weeks
Rule 9 requires emergency blocking to be placed before Committee within 48 hours.
Q15
Who chairs the Review Committee under Blocking Rules?
Designated Officer
Home Secretary
Secretary MeitY
Law Secretary
Review Committee is chaired by Secretary, MeitY.
Q16
For court-ordered blocking under Rule 10:
Committee examination is mandatory
Review Committee approval needed
Originator must be heard
Court order is directly implemented
Court orders are directly implemented without Committee examination.
Q17
Blocking Rules 2009 were notified under:
Section 66A
Section 69A(2)
Section 79
Section 87
Blocking Rules were notified under Section 69A(2) of IT Act.
Part 8.3: IT Rules 2021-2025 (Q18-26)
Q18
SSMI threshold under IT Rules 2021 is:
10 lakh users
25 lakh users
50 lakh users
1 crore users
SSMI is defined as social media intermediary with 50 lakh+ registered users in India.
Q19
Under Rule 3(2), Grievance Officer must acknowledge complaints within:
24 hours
48 hours
72 hours
7 days
Rule 3(2)(a) requires acknowledgment within 24 hours.
Q20
Grievance Officer must resolve complaints within:
7 days
15 days
30 days
45 days
Rule 3(2)(a) requires resolution within 15 days.
Q21
Under Rule 3(1)(d), content must be removed within __ of court/govt order:
12 hours
24 hours
48 hours
36 hours
Rule 3(1)(d) requires removal within 36 hours of court/govt order.
Q22
Rule 4(2) on traceability requires SSMIs to:
Track all user activities
Monitor all messages
Enable identification of first originator
Share user data with advertisers
Rule 4(2) requires enabling identification of first originator for specified content.
Q23
GAC was established by which amendment?
October 2022 Amendment
April 2023 Amendment
November 2025 Amendment
Original IT Rules 2021
GAC was established by October 2022 Amendment inserting Rule 3A.
Q24
Under 2025 draft rules, synthetic content label must cover:
5% of visual area
10% of visual area
25% of visual area
50% of visual area
Draft 2025 rules require synthetic content label to cover 10% of visual area.
Q25
SSMIs must publish compliance reports:
Weekly
Quarterly
Annually
Monthly
Rule 4(1)(d) requires monthly compliance reports from SSMIs.
Q26
Rule 4(4) on proactive monitoring applies to:
All intermediaries
ISPs only
SSMIs only
News publishers
Rule 4(4) proactive monitoring for CSAM applies only to SSMIs.
Part 8.4: Safe Harbour & Section 79 (Q27-35)
Q27
Section 79 provides:
Absolute immunity to intermediaries
Conditional exemption from liability
Criminal prosecution of intermediaries
Mandatory content monitoring
Section 79 provides conditional safe harbour — protection subject to due diligence compliance.
Q28
The Bazee.com (Avnish Bajaj) case exposed gaps in:
Original Section 79 (IT Act 2000)
Section 66A
Section 69A
IT Rules 2021
Bazee.com case (2005) exposed gaps in original S.79, leading to 2008 amendment.
Q29
Per Shreya Singhal, "actual knowledge" under Section 79 means:
Any user complaint
Private notice from rights holder
Court order or government notification
Media reports
SC held "actual knowledge" means only court order or government notification.
Q30
Under Section 79(2)(b), intermediary must NOT:
Provide access to users
Store user data
Host third-party content
Select or modify information
S.79(2)(b) requires intermediary not to initiate, select, or modify information.
Q31
Section 79(3)(a) removes immunity if intermediary:
Hosts user content
Conspires, abets, aids, or induces unlawful act
Charges fees for services
Operates from foreign servers
S.79(3)(a) removes immunity if intermediary conspires/abets/aids/induces the unlawful act.
Q32
MySpace v. Super Cassettes (Division Bench) held:
S.79 and Copyright Act can co-exist harmoniously
S.79 overrides Copyright Act
Copyright Act overrides S.79
S.79 applies only to IT Act offences
Division Bench attempted harmonious interpretation — both can co-exist.
Q33
Section 81 proviso protects rights under:
Contract Act
Consumer Protection Act
Copyright Act and Patent Act
Companies Act
Section 81 proviso protects rights under Copyright Act and Patent Act.
Q34
Section 79(1) begins with:
"Subject to other laws"
"In accordance with"
"Without prejudice to"
"Notwithstanding anything contained in any law"
S.79(1) has non-obstante clause — "notwithstanding anything contained in any law."
Q35
US Section 230 CDA compared to India's S.79:
Is more restrictive
Provides broader immunity
Has no safe harbour
Is identical
US Section 230 provides broader immunity — platforms not treated as "publishers."
Part 8.5: Due Diligence & Platform Obligations (Q36-44)
Q36
Christian Louboutin v. Nakul Bajaj distinguished:
Active vs Passive intermediaries
Indian vs Foreign intermediaries
Large vs Small intermediaries
Social media vs E-commerce
Court distinguished between "active" and "passive" intermediaries.
Q37
Amazon v. Amway (Division Bench) held:
Active intermediaries lose S.79
Only passive intermediaries get S.79
S.79 does NOT distinguish active/passive
E-commerce platforms are excluded from S.79
Division Bench held S.79 applies to ALL intermediaries — no active/passive distinction.
Q38
Google v. DRS Logistics introduced:
Proactive monitoring test
Enablement test for S.79
Knowledge standard
Quantitative test
Court introduced "enablement" test — if platform enables infringement, S.79 may not apply.
Q39
SSMI must appoint all EXCEPT:
Chief Compliance Officer
Nodal Contact Person
Resident Grievance Officer
Data Protection Officer
IT Rules require CCO, NCP, RGO — DPO is under DPDP Act, not IT Rules.
Q40
User data must be retained for __ after account closure:
180 days
90 days
1 year
3 years
Rule 3(1)(j) requires retention for 180 days after cancellation/withdrawal.
Q41
Intermediaries must assist law enforcement within:
24 hours
48 hours
72 hours
7 days
Rule 3(1)(k) requires providing information within 72 hours.
Q42
For women's dignity/privacy issues, action required within:
36 hours
24 hours
48 hours
15 days
Rule 3(2)(b) requires 24-hour action for women's modesty/dignity complaints.
Q43
Moffatt v. Air Canada (2024) held:
AI chatbots are separate legal entities
AI cannot be held liable
Users are responsible for AI output
Company deploying AI is responsible for AI outputs
Court rejected AI as "separate entity" — deploying company remains responsible.
Q44
Under proactive monitoring (Rule 4(4)), detection is for:
CSAM and rape/gang-rape content
All illegal content
Copyright violations
Defamatory content
Rule 4(4) specifically targets CSAM and rape/gang-rape depictions.
Part 8.6: Grievance Appellate Committee (Q45-51)
Q45
How many GACs were constituted in January 2023?
One
Two
Three
Five
Three GACs were constituted on January 27, 2023.
Q46
Appeal to GAC must be filed within __ of GO decision:
15 days
30 days
60 days
90 days
Rule 3A(2) allows appeal within 30 days of GO decision or non-response.
Q47
GAC must endeavour to dispose appeals within:
15 days
30 days
60 days
90 days
Rule 3A(4) requires GAC to endeavour disposal within 30 days.
Q48
GAC operates through:
Digital platform only (gac.gov.in)
Physical hearings only
Email submissions only
Postal applications only
GAC operates entirely online through gac.gov.in portal.
Q49
GAC was established by insertion of:
Rule 3
Rule 4
Rule 7
Rule 3A
GAC was established by inserting Rule 3A via October 2022 Amendment.
Q50
GAC became operational from:
January 1, 2023
February 1, 2023
March 1, 2023
April 1, 2023
GAC became operational from March 1, 2023.
Q51
GAC is a:
Non-mandatory alternative to courts
Mandatory pre-condition before court
Criminal adjudication body
Replacement for courts
GAC is an alternative forum — right to approach courts directly is preserved.
Part 8.7: Writ Remedies & Court Challenges (Q52-60)
Q52
Blocking orders can be challenged under:
Article 226 (writ petition)
Article 32 only
Civil suit only
No judicial remedy available
Per Shreya Singhal, blocking orders can be challenged under Article 226.
Q53
"John Doe" orders in India are also called:
Ram Prasad orders
Ashok Kumar orders
Anonymous orders
X orders
John Doe orders are called "Ashok Kumar" orders in Indian practice.
Q54
First John Doe order in India was in:
Bazee.com case 2005
Shreya Singhal 2015
Taj Television v. Rajan Mandal 2002
Singham case 2011
First John Doe was Taj Television v. Rajan Mandal (2002) for FIFA World Cup.
Q55
Dynamic injunctions allow:
Blocking without court order
Government to block without reasons
ISPs to decide blocking
Extending blocking to new pirate sites without fresh suit
Dynamic injunctions extend to mirror/redirect sites without new litigation.
Q56
UTV v. 1337X.To (2019) introduced:
Quantitative test only
Dynamic injunction + qualitative test
Proactive monitoring
Safe harbour expansion
Court introduced dynamic injunction and qualitative test for blocking.
Q57
Writ of Certiorari is used to:
Quash illegal blocking orders
Direct unblocking
Prevent future blocking
Seek compensation
Certiorari quashes/nullifies illegal orders.
Q58
HTTPS encryption makes __ technically difficult:
Domain blocking
IP blocking
URL-level blocking
All blocking
HTTPS encrypts URL paths, making URL-level blocking technically impossible.
Q59
X Corp. v. Union of India (2024) upheld:
Section 66A
GAC structure
Fact-checking unit
Rule 3(1)(d) and Sahyog portal
Karnataka HC upheld Rule 3(1)(d) and government's Sahyog portal.
Q60
Writ of Mandamus can be used to:
Quash orders
Direct government to unblock content
Seek damages
File criminal case
Mandamus directs authority to perform duty — can direct unblocking.
Submit Quiz
Quiz Results
0%
0
Correct
0
Incorrect
0
Unanswered
42
Passing (70%)
Retry Quiz