Rising Digital Censorship in India

Syllabus: GS2/Government Policy & Intervention

Context

• Recent blocking of video of a comedian (Pulkit Mani) under Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act highlights growing concerns over opaque and arbitrary digital censorship in India. These episodes reflect a broader, systemic expansion of executive-led censorship infrastructure in India’s digital public sphere.

About Digital Censorship in India

• Digital spaces in India, once seen as engines of democratic expression, are increasingly witnessing state-led regulation and content control. 
• Recent developments point toward a steady expansion of censorship powers, raising concerns over free speech, transparency, and accountability.

Legal Framework Governing Online Content

• Information Technology Act, 2000:
  • Section 69A: Empowers the government to block websites/content; upheld by the Supreme Court but with procedural safeguards including reasoned orders and hearing opportunities.
  • Section 79: Grants safe harbour to intermediaries; requires action only upon government or court orders — not private complaints (Shreya Singhal, 2015).
• IT Rules, 2021 (and Amendments): Regulate social media intermediaries, OTT platforms, and digital news. Introduced content takedown mechanisms, grievance redressal, and compliance norms — but have been continuously amended to expand executive reach.

Recent Developments and Expanding Powers

• Sahyog Portal (October 2025): Enables more than 35 state police units and 8 central agencies to issue takedown orders, creating decentralised censorship without accountability.
• Tightened Takedown Timelines (February 2026): Amendment reduced timelines to 3 hours with no exemptions for satire, parody, or artistic expression.
• Amendments Proposed in 2026:
  • Extend regulation to individual social media users;
  • Attempt to indirectly implement Broadcasting Bill, 2024 provisions;
  • Grant legal force to informal advisories and SOPs;
  • Remove cap on data retention by intermediaries;

Key Issues and Concerns

• Violation of Fundamental Rights: IT Rules may lead to overbroad and disproportionate censorship.
  • Article 19(1)(a): Freedom of speech and expression
  • Restrictions must satisfy Article 19(2) (reasonable restrictions)
• Lack of Due Process: No prior hearing or reasoned orders; users unaware of who ordered censorship, and why content was removed.
  • It undermines natural justice principles.
• Executive Overreach: Rules framed through delegated legislation; and continuous expansion without parliamentary scrutiny.
  • It is seen as a shift toward an ‘administrative censorship regime’.
• Chilling Effect on Free Speech: Fear of penalties leads to self-censorship that impacts satire, comedy, journalism, and political commentary.
• Overlapping Legal Powers: Multiple provisions like Section 69A, Section 79 of IT Rules creates confusion and arbitrariness in enforcement.
• Limitations of Judicial Response:
  • Delayed Adjudication: Long pendency weakens constitutional protection.
  • Fragmented Approach: Different High Courts having inconsistent rulings.
  • Limited Oversight on Executive Actions: Courts rarely review individual blocking orders, and secretive censorship mechanisms.

Judicial Response to Rising Digital Censorship in India

• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): It struck down Section 66A of the IT Act as unconstitutional, and laid down the foundation of digital free speech jurisprudence.
  • It upheld Section 69A (blocking powers) but with safeguards like reasoned orders, opportunity for hearing, and limited to Article 19(2) grounds.
  • It clarified Section 79 (safe harbour), and intermediaries need to act only on court/government orders, not private complaints.
  • It established that vague and overbroad restrictions violate Article 19(1)(a).
• Apoorva Arora v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2024) Case: It emphasized the need for objective criteria to determine obscenity, focusing on whether content arouses sexual or lustful thoughts rather than the perceived decency of language.
  • However, subjective interpretation remains a challenge.
• Key High Court Responses:
  • Kerala High Court (2021): It granted interim protection to petitioners, and recognised possible chilling effect on free speech.
  • Bombay High Court (2021): It struck down Rule 9 (Code of Ethics) for digital news, and held it violated freedom of press and expression.
  • Madras High Court: It expressed concerns over overregulation of digital media, and threat to editorial independence.
  • Delhi High Court: It allowed continued operation but acknowledged need for judicial scrutiny, and issues of proportionality.

Key Judicial Principles Emerging

• Doctrine of Proportionality: Restrictions need to be necessary, and least restrictive.
• Due Process Requirements: Mandatory notice, hearing, and reasoned orders.
• Protection Against Vagueness: Laws need not to be overbroad, and ambiguous.
• Safe Harbour Protection: Intermediaries not liable unless they fail to comply with valid legal orders.

Way Forward

• Strengthening Procedural Safeguards: Mandatory reasoned orders, right to hearing, and transparency reports.
• Parliamentary Oversight: Convert key rules into legislation, and limit excessive delegated powers.
• Independent Regulatory Body: Reduce direct executive control, and ensure accountability.
• Protecting Legitimate Expression: Explicit exemptions for satire, artistic content, and political speech
• Harmonisation of Laws: Avoid duplication across IT Act, IT Rules, and proposed Broadcasting laws.

Conclusion

• The expansion of opaque censorship powers without safeguards risks undermining democratic values, while regulation is necessary to tackle misinformation and security threats.
• A balanced approach rooted in constitutionalism, transparency, and accountability is essential.

Source: IE