wordpress blog stats
Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

, ,

Sec 69A blocks increased by 270% in 2020, 9,849 accounts/URLs blocked by govt

The government revealed on Wednesday in Parliament that it has blocked 9,849 websites and social media accounts in 2020 under Section 69A of the IT Act. “Wherever the situation warrants, under the provision of section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, Government blocks unlawful and malicious online content, in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above.

“Under this provision, 1385, 2799, 3603 and 9849 URLs/accounts/webpages were blocked during the years 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 respectively,” the government said in response to a Lok Sabha question by BJP MPs Mitesh Rameshbhai Patel and Shardaben Anilbhai Patel.

This represents an over 270% increase in blocked URLs in a single year from government orders. This information comes shortly after the government notified Intermediary Rules that require social media companies to be more proactive in deleting content upon government request, and prescribes self-regulatory mechanisms to this end. That might mean that, regardless of how the number of blocked URLs changes in 2021, the actual extent of censorship at the behest of the state may be much more significant.

In March last year, the government disclosed slightly different numbers, repeating a curious pattern of slightly shifting statistics for website blocking. It’s not clear why this has been happening — in 2020, the government said the number of blocked URLs in 2019 was 3,635, but now that number has reduced to 3,603.

Also read

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

Written By

I cover the digital content ecosystem and telecom for MediaNama.

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