Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy: THE HINDU

Context:

The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) blocked the Tamil magazine Vikatan's website.

News in Detail

Vikatan’s website became inaccessible after a complaint was filed with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) over Prime Minister Narendra Modi cartoon published in the magazine’s digital edition.

The MIB reportedly directed the DoT to block Vikatan’s website, mentioning national security and public order concerns under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000.

No official public notice was issued, and the magazine was not given prior warning, violating standard blocking procedures.

Legal Basis for Website Blocking  

Section 69A of the IT Act (2000)

Allows the government to block websites deemed threats to national security, sovereignty, public order, or incitement of violence.

Blocking orders are confidential, and affected parties often receive no formal notice.

2009 IT Blocking Rules

Ministries or states recommend blocking to the IT Ministry, which forms a review committee to decide.

The DoT then instructs telecom providers to enforce the block.

2021 IT Rules (Intermediary Guidelines)

Empower the MIB and IT Ministry to issue emergency content removal orders.

Focus on specific content takedowns (e.g., social media posts), but HTTPS encryption makes this difficult without publisher cooperation.

How Vikatan Was Blocked?

The DoT ordered telecom providers to restrict access to Vikatan’s website after the MIB’s directive.

The magazine received no prior notice, bypassing the 2009 rule requiring a hearing. Instead, it was served a notice under the 2021 rules on February 16, addressing the cartoon’s content but not the full website block.

Vikatan defended its right to publish political satire, claiming the block violated press freedom.

Concerns over Press Freedom and Digital Rights

The government has not publicly acknowledged the block.  

The complaint and the block’s timing raised fears of selective targeting. Vikatan and opposition parties condemned the move as an attack on free speech.

Media groups argue political satire is protected under democracy. The Editors Guild of India called the block a “blatant overreach”.

Way Forward

Experts urge public disclosure of blocking orders and judicial review to ensure accountability.

The government must clarify when website blocks are justified, distinguishing between genuine threats and dissent.

The Supreme Court must define website blocking limits to align with constitutional rights.

Reforms in the IT laws could mandate formal notices and appeals.

Must Read Articles: 

Freedom of Speech and Restrictions

Source: 

THE HINDU