Supreme court directed the petitioner challenging the arbitrary blocking of websites such telegram and we transfer to approach the Bombay High Court for appropriate relief.
The blocking was challenged on following grounds:
1. Procedure for blocking has been enumerated under Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (“ the rules”) framed under Section 69-A of IT Act, 2000 despite this the websites were blocked without adhering to procedure prescribed under the rules.
2. Rule 16 of the rules (secrecy provision) shall be removed as entire blocking process gets shrouded in secrecy due the said rule. It violates citizen’s fundamental right to information enshrined under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
3. Rule 16 conflicts with Section 22 of Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”). Rule 16 of the Rules is subordinate legislation whereas RTI Act is Parliamentary statute therefore Rule 16 must yield to plenary legislation as per the principle laid down in Indian Express Newspaper v. Union of India.
4. Failure to provide any reasons for blocking the website,non publication of blocking orders and findings of the review committee violates principles of natural justice as laid down in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union Of India.
5. Over Blocking and suo moto blocking of content by Internet Service Providers(“ISPs”) is illegal and goes against the Spirit of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.