"NEET Protests Expose Systemic Gaps in India's Internet Governance Framework"
Safe Harbour (Section 79, IT Act)
legal immunity for online intermediaries from liability for third-party content, conditional on compliance with takedown notices
Proportionality Test
judicial standard from Anuradha Bhasin requiring restrictions on fundamental rights to be necessary, least restrictive, and subject to review
India's approach to internet governance is shaped by a patchwork of legal instruments, the most significant being the Information Technology Act, 2000 and its subsequent amendments. Section 69A of the IT Act empowers the central government to block public access to online content on grounds including national security, public order, sovereignty, and decency — and the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 govern the procedural framework for such orders. Crucially, these blocking orders are issued without any mandatory prior judicial oversight, and the orders themselves are kept confidential, making public scrutiny nearly impossible.
The constitutional backdrop is equally important. Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression, which the Supreme Court in Faheema Shirin v. State of Kerala (2019) and subsequently in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) explicitly extended to internet access. In Anuradha Bhasin, the Court held that any restriction on internet services must satisfy the test of proportionality — the measure must be necessary, the least restrictive available, and subject to judicial review. Despite this landmark ruling, the legal architecture for internet shutdowns and platform bans has remained largely unchanged, creating a persistent gap between constitutional aspiration and administrative practice.
India's internet governance toolkit operates across several distinct layers. At the platform level, Section 69A allows the government to direct intermediaries to block entire applications or websites. The provision was originally designed to target specific pieces of content, but judicial interpretation has expanded its scope to cover entire platforms — a reading that sits uneasily with the proportionality doctrine. The safe harbour protection under Section 79 of the IT Act shields online intermediaries from liability for third-party content, provided they act as neutral conduits and comply with takedown notices. This protection is the legal foundation that allows platforms to host user-generated content without pre-screening every post; threatening its withdrawal is therefore a powerful — and potentially destabilising — lever of executive pressure.
At the network level, internet shutdowns — the suspension of mobile or broadband services in a geographic area — are ordered under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) or under the Telecom Suspension Rules, 2017. …
Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in the light of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court on Right to Privacy.
What is the basis of the claim that India is a surveillance state? Discuss the implications of mass surveillance for civil liberties and democratic governance.
With reference to Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, consider the following statements:
1.It empowers the central government to block public access to online content on grounds including public order and national security.
2.Blocking orders issued under this section are required to be made public within 48 hours.
3.The Supreme Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India held that any restriction on internet access must satisfy a proportionality test.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Which of the following best describes the 'safe harbour' protection available to online intermediaries under the Information Technology Act, 2000?
Consider the following assertion and reason:
Assertion (A): Ordering the removal of open-source code repositories for a messaging application does not prevent already-installed versions of that application from functioning.
Reason (R): Open-source software, once distributed, can operate independently of its central code repository, and removing the repository primarily affects the ability to audit and update the software.
Which of the following is correct?
With reference to Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) and its regulation, which of the following statements is/are correct?
1.The European Union's AI Act prohibits real-time remote biometric identification in public spaces by law enforcement without any exceptions.
2.India's Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 has been enacted but its operative provisions are not yet fully in force.
3.According to an RTI response from Delhi Police, an 80 per cent facial match is treated as a positive identification for law enforcement purposes.
Select the correct answer using the code below:
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account