55,580 websites, apps blocked in India between 2015 and September 2022: SFLC report

Around 55,580 websites, YouTube channels and mobile applications were blocked in India between January 2015 and September 2022, a report released recently by the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) said..The report stated that while this number is not exact, the information that is publicly available on the issue is limited. Information sought to understand the blocking is often denied citing confidentiality by the government, the report added..Website Blocking StatisticsThe number of websites blocked by invoking Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) stood at 26,447 (47.5% of blocked websites), the report said. Out of this, the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) blocked 26,352 websites and 9,484 websites were blocked by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB).The reasons cited include protecting the sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order and preventing the commission of any cognizable offence relating to those grounds.“However, no specific reason is pointed out. This is due to the non-publication of orders by the government by virtue of Rule 16 of the Blocking Rules, 2009”, the report stated.While specific reasons for website blocking done by MIB have come forth, the number of blocks ordered by MIB forms a minuscule portion of the total blocks, the report added. The second highest number of website blocks, standing at 26,024 (46.8% of total blocked websites) was on account of court orders in copyright cases, as per the report. This includes instances where a large number of websites were blocked by a single court order, since such websites tend to mirror each other. The third major ground for blocking was on grounds of obscenity, child sexual abuse material and pornography. Around 1,065 websites were blocked on this ground between 2015 and 2022. The report said that 857 websites were blocked by MEITY following an Uttarakhand High Court to block websites or any content online depicting pornography, especially child pornography. Further, 238 websites were blocked by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai in 2016 for obscenity/porn/child sexual abuse.Other reasons cited for the banning of websites include defamation, public disorder, law and order and contempt of court, the report adds.Additionally, 1,502 other websites, URLs, social media platforms, and posts were blocked, as per responses received from applications under the RTI Act, the report adds..On blocking of Mobile Applications274 mobile applications were stated to have been blocked by MEITY for over 2 years under section 69A, IT Act.59 applications, including TikTok, Shein, DU browser and CU browser, were blocked in June 2020. In September 2020, 118 more applications were blocked, including PUBG, Ludo World, Beauty Cam etc. In November 2020, 43 more applications were blockedThe reasons cited included that these applications had indulged in stealing user data and transmitting them outside India in an unauthorised manner for profiling. The Ministry also stated that CERT-IN received representations from citizens raising concerns regarding data security and breach of privacy..On the legal regime governing blocking of online contentThe report said that the existing law governing the blocking of online content, primarily under Section 69A of the IT Act, is opaque and lacks checks and balances.“The Review Committee comprises members solely belonging to the executive which results in there being no real check on executive action”, the report highlightedIt further said that the blanket confidentiality clause set out in Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information of Public) Rules, 2009 is unconstitutional and ultra vires Section 69A of the IT Act and in conflict with the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.The report also referred to how far the Right to Information (RTI) Act aids in obtaining information in such matters. Referring to RTI queries submitted by SLFC, it was stated that information was denied on several occasions by citing Section 8 (dealing with circumstances where the authority is not obliged to give information) of the RTI Act and Rule 16 of the IT Rules, 2009.In the case of the recent blocking of Videolan.org (which offers the VLC media player application for download), an RTI request yielded no satisfactory response, with the concerned authority stating that no information was available with the department. A second appeal is pending, the report added. It may be noted that the ban on Videolan.org was reportedly lifted in November, last year, nearly nine months after the blocking..[Read Report]