MEDIANAMA
Technology and policy in India
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:
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.
Section 69A, proportionality, and less restrictive alternatives: IFF argued that the temporary nature of the restriction does not automatically make it proportionate.
SFLC.in, in an X thread following the judgment, focused on the Court’s interpretation of “information” under the IT Act:
Writing for the Bar Bulletin, advocate Arjun Harkauli argued that the ruling effectively transforms a content-blocking provision into a platform-blocking mechanism.
Writing for Constitutional Law and Philosophy, Tanmay Durani, a researcher at the Centre for Advanced Studies in Cyber Law and Artificial Intelligence, questioned whether the government had sufficiently demonstrated that narrower interventions had failed:
Platform architecture and future implications: Harkauli argued that the government relied heavily on Telegram’s channels, bots, cloud infrastructure, and message-editing features to justify the restriction:
Supreme Court advocate Shaileshwar Yadav argued that the judgment shifts the focus from intermediary compliance to platform design:
Durani similarly argued that the judgment treats a platform’s resistance to targeted intervention as justification for broader restrictions:
Due process and hearings: IFF criticised the use of the emergency procedure under Rule 9 instead of the ordinary hearing process under Rule 8:
SFLC highlighted a separate transparency concern:
Also read
For You
The Delhi High Court has found a prima facie case of passing off after sellers allegedly exploited Flipkart’s latching on feature to market counterfeit products.
Jio’s DRHP identifies India’s net neutrality framework as a potential obstacle to monetising advanced 5G services through network slicing.
MediaNama is the premier source of information and analysis on Technology Policy in India. More about MediaNama, and contact information, here.
© 2024 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd.
source
Technology and policy in India
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:
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.
Section 69A, proportionality, and less restrictive alternatives: IFF argued that the temporary nature of the restriction does not automatically make it proportionate.
SFLC.in, in an X thread following the judgment, focused on the Court’s interpretation of “information” under the IT Act:
Writing for the Bar Bulletin, advocate Arjun Harkauli argued that the ruling effectively transforms a content-blocking provision into a platform-blocking mechanism.
Writing for Constitutional Law and Philosophy, Tanmay Durani, a researcher at the Centre for Advanced Studies in Cyber Law and Artificial Intelligence, questioned whether the government had sufficiently demonstrated that narrower interventions had failed:
Platform architecture and future implications: Harkauli argued that the government relied heavily on Telegram’s channels, bots, cloud infrastructure, and message-editing features to justify the restriction:
Supreme Court advocate Shaileshwar Yadav argued that the judgment shifts the focus from intermediary compliance to platform design:
Durani similarly argued that the judgment treats a platform’s resistance to targeted intervention as justification for broader restrictions:
Due process and hearings: IFF criticised the use of the emergency procedure under Rule 9 instead of the ordinary hearing process under Rule 8:
SFLC highlighted a separate transparency concern:
Also read
For You
- Read Reasoned by Nikhil Pahwa: How AI is changing our world
- Sign up for MediaNama’s Daily Newsletter to receive regular updates
- Sponsor a MediaNama Event
The Delhi High Court has found a prima facie case of passing off after sellers allegedly exploited Flipkart’s latching on feature to market counterfeit products.
Jio’s DRHP identifies India’s net neutrality framework as a potential obstacle to monetising advanced 5G services through network slicing.
MediaNama is the premier source of information and analysis on Technology Policy in India. More about MediaNama, and contact information, here.
© 2024 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd.
source
Leave a Reply