INTRODUCTION
In the modern era, a single click grants us access to vast amounts of information. The Internet has become a powerful tool for communication, learning, and knowledge-sharing, so deeply embedded in our daily lives that it is difficult to imagine living without it. While this digital revolution has empowered individuals and communities, the unlimited access it provides also carries risks of misuse. In India, where religion and politics remain highly sensitive, the government frequently resorts to censoring online content in the name of public order and national security. Although such censorship may sometimes be justified, it can also serve as a means of suppressing criticism, silencing dissent, and concealing information from the public.
The Constitution of India
guarantees the freedom of speech and
expression under Article 19(1)(a), subject to the reasonable
restrictions outlined in Article 19(2). Alongside this, the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act)
provides citizens the power to seek information from public authorities,
thereby strengthening transparency and accountability in governance. However,
when internet censorship is applied in an overbroad, opaque, or prolonged manner, it undermines both the
free flow of ideas and the transparency mandate of the RTI Act. Since most
government notifications, public-interest journalism, and civic debates now
occur primarily online, the challenge is not the existence of restrictions
themselves, but the fact that they are often disproportionate, lacking due process, and inadequately justified.
HOW INTERNET
CENSORSHIP INTERSECTS WITH RTI ACT
Internet censorship in India frequently operates through three major legal mechanisms:
1. Content Blocking under Section 69A of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 and the 2009 Blocking Rules
Section 69A empowers the Central Government to direct intermediaries (such as ISPs and social media platforms) to block public access to specific content in the interests of sovereignty, integrity of India, defense, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, or public order. The Blocking Rules, 2009, establish the procedure for such blocking, but these proceedings are often confidential and opaque.
· This secrecy collides directly with the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005, which seeks transparency in governmental functioning. Citizens filing RTI requests to obtain information about blocking orders are frequently denied access on grounds of “national security” or “confidentiality,” leaving them in the dark about why certain information is inaccessible.
· For instance, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court upheld Section 69A but emphasized that blocking must be narrowly tailored and accompanied by procedural safeguards. However, in practice, the opacity of blocking orders prevents effective public scrutiny, undermining the RTI’s goal of accountability.
2.
Platform and Content Moderation Obligations under the
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code)
Rules, 2021
The 2021 IT Rules place significant responsibility on intermediaries and digital news publishers to regulate content, take down flagged material, and comply with government orders. While the stated aim is to prevent harmful or unlawful content, these rules also increase the potential for indirect censorship of news portals, journalists, and critics of government policy.
· This disproportionately affects the RTI framework, since much of the information about governmental mismanagement, corruption, or public-interest matters is first reported online by digital media. Restrictive compliance requirements or the takedown of journalistic content deny citizens indirect access to vital information that they are entitled to under the RTI Act.
3.
Internet Shutdowns via Executive Orders
India has the dubious distinction of being the “internet shutdown capital of the world,” with hundreds of shutdowns over the last decade. Under the Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017, issued under Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, state governments can suspend internet services.
· These shutdowns directly obstruct the practical exercise of the RTI Act, as citizens cannot file online RTI applications, access government websites, or receive updates about public schemes and services.
·
The case of Anuradha Bhasin v. Union
of India (2020) is particularly relevant. The Supreme Court held that
indefinite internet shutdowns are unconstitutional and that suspension orders
must be published, proportionate, and subject to judicial review. Yet,
shutdowns continue to be imposed broadly, especially in sensitive regions like
Jammu & Kashmir, thereby paralyzing both free speech and access to
information.
Rights and Restrictions
1. Constitutional Baseline
· Article 19(1)(a) protects freedom of speech and expression; Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions in the interests of sovereignty and integrity, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation, incitement to an offence, and integrity of the States.
· The RTI Act, 2005 embodies a statutory right to access information held by public authorities (Sec. 3), imposes proactive disclosure duties (Sec. 4(1)(b) & 4(2)), and defines “information” broadly (Sec. 2(f)). Exemptions exist (Sec. 8, 9), but even exempt information may be disclosed if public interest outweighs harm in some cases.
2. Statutory Levers for Online Restriction
· Section 69A, IT Act, 2000 allows the Central Government to block public access to online information for specified 19(2)-like grounds, implemented through the 2009 Blocking Rules. Rule 16 imposes strict confidentiality over blocking requests and actions—reducing transparency about what is blocked and why.
· The IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (as amended to 2023) add obligations for intermediaries and digital news/publishers and interact with the blocking framework.
·
Newer telecom regulations also influence
shutdown practices (e.g., updated Telecommunication (Temporary Suspension
of Telecom Services) Rules, 2024 under the Telecommunications Act,
2023), continuing the trend of codifying suspension powers.
Is All “Censorship” Unconstitutional? The Line Between Regulation and Obstacle
The Constitution permits only reasonable restrictions; Section 69A lists grounds mirroring Article 19(2), and the Blocking Rules create a procedure. Blocking or takedown can be lawful when narrow, case-specific, and well-reasoned.
Courts
have not outlawed content moderation frameworks; rather,
they require due process and precision (e.g.,
Shreya Singhal on overbreadth; Anuradha Bhasin on
proportionality in connectivity restrictions). Where the means
are opaque, mass in scale, or prolonged,
they become obstacles to RTI and speech.
Policy & Practice Gaps (and Fixes)
Gap 1: Secrecy of Blocking Orders
Problem: Rule
16 secrecy shields the scope, targets, and reasons
for blocking. RTI queries then face Sec. 8(1)(a) exemptions,
creating a loop of opacity.
Fixes:
·
Publish redacted blocking orders
(removing sensitive specifics) and aggregated transparency reports
(counts by ground, category, duration).
·
Provide post-decisional hearings
to affected publishers (with notice), reflecting the spirit of fair procedure
recognized in speech cases.
Gap 2: Overbroad Shutdowns
Problem: Recurring, district-wide shutdowns have grave effects and RTI spill overs. Data shows India consistently near the top globally.
Fix: Following the decision in Anuradha
Bhasin: publish reasoned orders, limit scope
and duration, adopt targeted content takedowns over
network-wide kills, and mandate independent/periodic review.
Gap 3: Platform
Over-Compliance
Problem: Ambiguity and liability risks nudge intermediaries toward excess removal, shrinking the public-information commons.
Fix: Clarify due process and counter-notice norms, publish government requests (aggregated), and build appeal pathways for civic content.
Gap 4: Digital
Divide & Access
Problem: Shutdowns and throttling disproportionately hit rural and low-income users who depend on mobile data—undermining RTI access and civic participation.
Fix: Harden offline RTI channels (physical facilitation centers, postal fee waivers in affected areas), ensure kiosks in panchayats/wards, and publish contingency SOPs for continuity of disclosures during outages.
What should be done?
1. Use RTI to Demand Procedure, Not Secrets
Seek copies of blocking/shutdown orders with reasons and review minutes (redacted where necessary). Even if specifics are exempt, aggregated data and procedural compliance records (e.g., frequency of committee meetings, review intervals) can be disclosed. The MeitY RTI response indicates at least th number of committee meetings and aggregate URL counts have been shared.
2. Track and Document Shutdowns
Log dates, duration, affected services (mobile data, broadband), and administrative communications; contribute to trackers and reference global context.
3. Leverage Proactive Disclosure (Sec. 4)
Many departments must publish organizational details, rules, budgets, tenders, and reasoning for decisions. Familiarity with Sec. 4 checklists can reduce the need for individual RTI requests—and strengthen any appeal when disclosures are missing.
4. Invoke Rights Jurisprudence When
Challenging Overreach
Cite Shreya
Singhal (precision/overbreadth), Anuradha Bhasin
(necessity/proportionality, speaking orders, temporariness), and Faheema
Shirin (access enabling education and dignity) to frame how internet
restrictions undermine speech and information rights.
Conclusion
When censorship is opaque, sweeping, or prolonged. India’s legal framework permits targeted, reasoned restrictions with due process. But mass blocking behind a veil of confidentiality and frequent, broad shutdowns (where India has been a global outlier) frustrate RTI’s core promise of an informed citizenry and chill speech by narrowing the online public sphere.
The solution is not to abandon safeguards, but to discipline their use: publish speaking orders (with necessary redactions), embrace transparency-by-default for aggregated censorship data, minimize the breadth and duration of shutdowns, and maintain alternative access to RTI when connectivity fails.
If those reforms take hold, India can reconcile national-security
imperatives with the constitutional and statutory guarantees
that have long underpinned its democratic project.
