"Offline Messaging App Pulled from India App Store Over IT Act Order"
Section 69A
IT Act provision empowering the Centre to block public access to online content on security grounds.
Mesh networking
decentralised communication where nearby devices relay messages directly without internet or a central server.
Freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution is not absolute. Article 19(2) permits the State to impose reasonable restrictions on this freedom on specified grounds: sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offence. Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 carries this same logic into the digital domain. It empowers the Central Government to direct blocking of public access to any information through a computer resource on grounds that track Article 19(2) almost exactly: sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, or preventing incitement to a cognizable offence relating to these.
The procedure for exercising this power is laid down in the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. These require a designated officer to examine a blocking request, a government-constituted review committee to record reasons, and the originator or intermediary to ordinarily be given a hearing, though blocking orders and the reasons behind them are kept confidential. In Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 69A precisely because of these procedural safeguards, while in the same judgment it struck down the vaguely worded Section 66A for having a chilling effect on free speech. Section 69A has since become the principal legal route through which the government directs platforms, including international app stores, to restrict access to specific content or applications within India.
The app in question operates on Bluetooth-based mesh networking: nearby devices relay messages directly to one another without needing mobile data, Wi-Fi, or a central server. This design lets users keep communicating even when internet services are suspended, a feature valuable during natural disasters but also attractive during protests where authorities have imposed temporary internet restrictions. Indian security agencies flagged exactly this capability, arguing that a decentralised architecture with no central service provider limits their ability to identify users, trace communications, or assist investigations during public order situations. …
'Right of movement and residence throughout the territory of India are freely available to the Indian citizens, but these rights are not absolute.' Comment.
With reference to the Shreya Singhal v Union of India (2015) judgment, which of the following statements is/are correct?
1.The Supreme Court struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, 2000 as unconstitutional.
2.The Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000.
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
Consider the following grounds listed under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 for blocking public access to online information:
1.Sovereignty and integrity of India
2.Friendly relations with foreign States
3.Economic stability of India
4.Public order
How many of the above are valid grounds under Section 69A?
The procedure for issuing blocking orders under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is governed by which of the following?
The Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C), which issued a takedown directive in this case, functions under which of the following?
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account