Plea against arbitrary blocking of Telegram, WeTransfer: Supreme Court asks petitioner to approach High Court

A public interest litigation (PIL) petition before the Supreme Court challenging the government's decision to block websites such as WeTransfer and Telegram was withdrawn by the petitioner on Monday after the top court asked the petitioner to move the Bombay High Court first [Abha Singh v. Union of India & Ors]..A Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Vikram Nath told the petitioner, advocate Abha Singh that the Bombay High Court is empowered to grant relief in the matter."You file before the Bombay High Court, you are appearing from there," Justice Vikram Nath said."The High Court can grant relief. When that remedy is available .... Will you withdraw," Justice Gavai also weighed in.Singh then chose to withdraw the petition. The petition contended that the websites were blocked without following the procedure prescribed under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 formulated under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000..Further, due to the provision of confidentiality under Rule 16 of the said Rules, the entire blocking process was shrouded in secrecy, the plea stated. The plea sought removal of the confidentiality provision under Rule 16 of the said Rules. "This opacity is antithetical to the principles of public accountability that are inherent in a democracy and violates the exercise of the fundamental rights of citizens, including of the Petitioners, particularly their right to information, under Article 19 of the Constitution of India and the Right to Information Act, 2005," the plea said. .The petitioners also contended that, multiple and recurring instances of arbitrary blocking practices have come to the fore which impede citizens' right to information and the right to freely communicate over the internet under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution..The petitioner challenged the government action on following grounds:The confidentiality provision under Rule 16 of the 2009 Rules is violative of the Right to Information under Article 19(1)(a).Rule 16 is a subordinate legislation which conflicts with Section 22 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which is a parliamentary statute. This is in contravention of the well-established principle that subordinate legislation must yield to plenary legislation, as observed in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. v. Union ofIndia.The non-publication of Blocking Orders and findings of the Review Committee and the failure to record reasons in the Blocking Orders violates the principles of natural justice and the decision of this Hon'ble Court in Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India.The existence of parallel blocking procedures contravenes the well-settled rule in Hukam Chand Shyam Lal v. Union of India that when a statute has enacted something to be done in a particular way, it must be done in that way or not at all.Over-blocking and suo-motu blocking of content by Internet Service Providers is illegal and goes against the spirit of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India..[Read order]