wordpress blog stats
Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

How India Should Approach Website Blocking

First and foremost: I do not in support of blocking content on the Internet. I believe that the Internet is a multi-cast medium, rather than broadcast medium: communication on the Internet is one-to-many, rather than one-to-all, and for the most bit, users have the choice to receive and view what is being shared with them. They can choose to ignore, unfriend and deregister.

However, I do realize that there are instances where India’s Department of Telecom has to order ISPs to block access to specific webpages and websites on grounds of national security and public order*, or when it is ordered to do so by Courts.

Last year, I had made the following recommendations on India’s IT Rules, as a member of a Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) on Internet Governance set up by FICCI. These recommendations were shared with India’s Department of Telecom by FICCI, as well as by me in an open discussion with CERT-IN head Gulshan Rai and IT Secretary R. Chandrashekhar. I’m publishing them below, because it’s become relevant to mention these, and the DoT hasn’t done anything to improve its processes, in terms of transparency:

1. Specific terminology regarding restrictions: The broad phrases included in the IT Rules are a cause for concern since bring in scope for misuse, and lay grounds for illegitimate censorship of content on the web and unreasonable restrictions. The phrases need to be changed/revisited, and those such as “grossly harmful”, blasphemy, “impacting friendly relations between nations”, “disparaging” among others, need to be removed and/or made specific.

2. Increase transparency: Lack of transparency leads to lack of trust. People need to know what has been blocked, why it has been blocked, who has taken the decision to block it, and what is the process of getting the block removed (if it is my page). When citizens visit a blocked page, there should be all of this information, for that specific page, even more detailed than what the government of Kuwait does. Transparency will ensure accountability. In addition, the government must maintain a public list of blocked sites, along with reasons and options for recourse in each case. Also, the government must itself follow the processes outlined by them, and transparency will help ensure this.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

3. Recourse needs to be established: If my page is blocked, there needs to be adequate protection for me, as a creator of content, a citizen and/or a business entity. It’s not possible for me to go to court in each instance, to get a block removed. Let the complainant go to court to validate his complaint within a specified time period, for which the block remains active. If not, the block should be removed. There should also be a counter-notice mechanism, and a limited (maximum) timeframe of one week for which a block may be allowed to be put into place without judicial approval.

4. Limitations need to be put on the actions of intermediaries when it comes to blocking. The state’s job is to not just prevent malicious content, but also to protect the rights of citizens, in terms of freedom of expression. After Anonymous India hacked into the servers of one intermediary (ISP/Telco), it was revealed that several of the links blocked had not been mandated by courts or the government, but were those critical of the intermediary. This means that ISPs are themselves potentially curtailing freedom of expression online, and this needs to be looked into. The government needs to protect the rights of citizens.

If you look at these recommendations in the light of URLs critical of IIPM being blocked, here is how the above guidelines would have helped:
1. We would have a public list of all the URLs blocked by the DoT following the court order, because the order (which we got from our source and published), would have been made public.
2. We would have a copy of the court order received by the DoT, with the URLs.
3. The DoT would not have been in a position to go beyond its mandate and block additional URLs, beyond those listed in the court order. We’re not saying that it has done that, but it would not be able to do that if the court order was also public.
4. ISPs would not been able to go beyond mandate of the DoT order or the court order.

Transparency will make a big difference.

* because URLs are often a threat to national security and public order**
** Sarcasm, in case you didn’t get it

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.
Written By

Founder @ MediaNama. TED Fellow. Asia21 Fellow @ Asia Society. Co-founder SaveTheInternet.in and Internet Freedom Foundation. Advisory board @ CyberBRICS

MediaNama’s mission is to help build a digital ecosystem which is open, fair, global and competitive.



Looking at the definition of health data, it is difficult to verify whether health IDs are covered by the Bill.


The accession to the Convention brings many advantages, but it could complicate the Brazilian stance at the BRICS and UN levels.


In light of the state's emerging digital healthcare apparatus, how does Clause 12 alter the consent and purpose limitation model?


The collective implication of leaving out ‘proportionality’ from Clause 12 is to provide very wide discretionary powers to the state.


The latest draft is also problematic for companies or service providers that have nothing to with children's data.

You May Also Like


Google has released a Google Travel Trends Report which states that branded budget hotel search queries grew 179% year over year (YOY) in India, in...


135 job openings in over 60 companies are listed at our free Digital and Mobile Job Board: If you’re looking for a job, or...


Rajesh Kumar* doesn’t have many enemies in life. But, Uber, for which he drives a cab everyday, is starting to look like one, he...


By Aroon Deep and Aditya Chunduru You’re reading it here first: Twitter has complied with government requests to censor 52 tweets that mostly criticised...

MediaNama is the premier source of information and analysis on Technology Policy in India. More about MediaNama, and contact information, here.

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ

Subscribe to our daily newsletter
Your email address:*
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ