Govt cannot order blocking of accounts without notice to users: Twitter

Govt cannot order blocking of accounts without notice to users: Twitter

Subject: Polity

Context: The court was hearing a petition moved by Twitter against orders issued by the Ministry of Electronic and Information Technology to block 39 accounts in 2021.

Concept:

• The Union government cannot block Twitter accounts without first issuing notices to the users and Twitter itself, the social media platform told the Karnataka High Court, citing norms laid down by the Supreme Court and Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
• The counsel argued that “If the central government finds a tweet to be objectionable or offensive then there is a particular procedure to be followed and as per the Supreme Court decision in the Shreya Singhalcase they have to give notice to the person sending the message that this is objectionable and why it should not be taken down and the reasons have to be recorded in writing”.
• In India, the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, as amended from time to time, governs all activities related to the use of computer resources.
• It covers all ‘intermediaries’ who play a role in the use of computer resources and electronic records.

Section 69 (A) of the Information Technology Act

• It confers on the Central and State governments the power to issue directions “to intercept, monitor or decrypt any information generated, transmitted, received or stored in any computer resource”.
• The grounds on which these powers may be exercised are:
• In the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of India, defence of India, the security of the state.
• Friendly relations with foreign states.
• Public order, or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to these.
• For investigating any offence.

Process of Blocking Internet Websites:

• Section 69A, for similar reasons and grounds (as stated above), enables the Centre to ask any agency of the government, or any intermediary, to block access to the public of any information generated, transmitted, received or stored or hosted on any computer resource.
• The term ‘intermediaries’ includes providers of telecom service, network service, Internet service and web hosting, besides search engines, online payment and auction sites, online marketplaces and cyber cafes.
• Any such request for blocking access must be based on reasons given in writing.

Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, 2015

• The Supreme Court of India struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
• The Supreme Court of India observed that Section 66-A was over-broad and vague, hence it violated Article 19(1)(a).
• This judgement was considered to be vital for the preservation of online free speech in India.

About Section 66A:

• It empowered police to make arrests over what policemen, in terms of their subjective discretion, could construe as “offensive” or “menacing” or for the purposes of causing annoyance, inconvenience, etc.
• It prescribed the punishment for sending messages through a computer or any other communication device like a mobile phone or a tablet, and a conviction could fetch a maximum of three years in jail.