The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed Telegram’s petition challenging the Central Government’s emergency blocking order under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which temporarily restricted access to the platform until the immediate aftermath of the NEET-UG 2026 re-examination.
Upholding the government’s action, Justice Tejas Karia held that the order satisfied the constitutional test of proportionality and fell within the Centre’s statutory powers under Section 69A. The Court also held that Telegram, as an application and platform, fell within the scope of the provision, observing that software-based infrastructure qualifies as a “computer resource” under the Act.
Platform-wide blocking and free speech: The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), in a statement issued after the judgment questioned the court’s interpretation of Section 69A:
- IFF argued that Shreya Singhal v Union of India upheld Section 69A because the power was understood to be narrowly drawn and directed at specific information.
- It warned that extending the provision to an entire intermediary treats “the speech of a whole population as a single switch to be turned off.”
- According to IFF, the precedent carries consequences for “the open internet that extend well beyond this case.”
Nikhil Pahwa, Founder & Editor at MediaNama, argued in an X thread that the ban was disproportionate and set a troubling precedent for future platform regulation.
- Pahwa said the government had not proved that it had exhausted all possible avenues before resorting to a block and described pre-censorship as “an extreme step.”
- He argued that “blocking of a platform is different from blocking of a group, is different from blocking of an account, is different from blocking of a post” because the restriction affects lawful users, businesses, and speech across the platform.
- He warned that the ruling creates “a problematic precedence where the government of India will, on a whim, threaten to block entire platforms because they don’t accede to their extreme-censorship demands.”
Section 69A, proportionality, and less restrictive alternatives: IFF argued that the temporary nature of the restriction does not automatically make it proportionate.
- Citing Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India, it said the State must demonstrate that no less intrusive alternative was available.
- It warned that “a blanket block, however brief, restricts the lawful expression and the right to receive information of millions of Indians.”
SFLC.in, in an X thread following the judgment, focused on the Court’s interpretation of “information” under the IT Act:
- SFLC noted that the statute defines information broadly enough to include software and databases.
- However, it described the ruling as setting “a dangerous precedent” because it accepted a platform-wide restriction affecting nearly 150 million users as…
Source link
Disclaimer
We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We blogs.grocliq.com want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.
Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at [email protected]
