Context
The censorship of internet in India has become a multi-faceted, sometimes opaque, regime that is motivated by Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, and the IT Rules, 2021, to safeguard sovereignty and the public order. Nonetheless, use of blocking based on the ISP level causes inconsistency in access, random censorship and major issues in regard to digital freedom and privacy.
Inconsistent ISP Blocking
In March 2026, a large-scale technical research study showed that of 43,083 unique domains blocked by six major Indian ISPs, only 1,414 (3.3 percent) were blocked by all the providers.
- Disproportionate blocking: The ISPs that blocked the most domains (27,649) were Airtel, whereas the minimal blocking was done by others (Connect Broadband blocked 9,414 domains).
- Selective Prioritization: There is uniformity in sensitive categories such as terrorism and militancy. On the other hand, those blocks associated with piracy (more than 50% of which) and pornography exhibit very low levels of consensus among the ISPs.
- Arbitrary blockages: ISPs have been caught to block domains without any apparent legal directive or to keep blocking domains after authorized unblocking instructions.
Legal System and Structures
- IT Act, 2000, Section 69A: The central government can prohibit individuals on the internet to access any information, as it deems necessary to protect the sovereignty, security, foreign relations or the order of India.
- IT Rules, 2021: Requires three-tier redressal of grievances, the ultimate level of which can be used by bureaucrats to direct content to be removed, and can sometimes bypass the legal review processes.
- ISP License Agreements: Internet Service Providers (ISPs) legally comply with blocking directives of the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), commonly as subject to confidentiality requirements.
- Section 79: Regulates the intermediary liability and requires platforms to censor content in order to have legal immunity.
Technical and Constitutional Issues
- DNS Poisoning: DNS filtering (or DNS poisoning) is used by the majority of Indian ISPs as it is inexpensive, but can easily be overcome by more tech-sophisticated users with VPNs or alternative DNS servers.
- Violation of Rights: Critics believe that inconsistent blocking is against the Right to Information and Freedom of Expression (Article 19(1)(a)) and it results in an unequal digital environment, where the right to access information is depending on the choice of the ISP.
- Judicial Precedent: Although the Supreme Court affirmed the Section 69A in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), it ordered procedural protections such as allowing parties that would be affected to hear the proceedings- provisions that experts argue are virtually never realized in reality as the system is too opaque.
Challenges and Constitutional Conflicts
- Infringement of Fundamental Rights: This censorship has a risk of infringing on the Freedom of Speech and Expression in Article 19(1) (a).
- Proportionality and Privacy: The Supreme Court in the case on Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, in its ruling, and the critics have stated that the restrictions should be justified and reasonable. Many consider the 2021 Rules to be a threat to personal privacy and data security.
- Arbitrary Action: The authority to remove digital content, especially news, at will, and on the spot, has unlimited potential to be abused.
- Economic Impact: Indiscriminate blocking has the potential to impact businesses and startups that rely on certain online services.
Way Forward
To strike a balance, the transparency is badly needed. Blocking orders are to be publicized except high level national security concerns. The oversight mechanism should entail the judicial check and not the bureaucratic check with the proportionality test as determined in the Puttaswamy judgment. To have a healthy digital democracy, it is important to ensure that the procedures are uniform, transparent and legally sound.
Source: The Hindu
UPSC Prelims Practice Question
(Q) Consider the following statements regarding the regulatory framework for internet censorship in India:
- Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, empowers the Central Government to block access to online content in the interest of national security and public order.
- The IT Rules 2021 require social media intermediaries to establish a grievance redressal mechanism and remove unlawful content within specified timelines.
- As per judicial precedents, all internet shutdowns require prior approval from the Supreme Court of India.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
A) 1 and 2 only
B) 2 and 3 only
C) 1 and 3 only
D) 1, 2, and 3
.png)
