BENGALURU: The Union government contended before the Karnataka High Court that X Corp’s prayer for issuing a writ declaring Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, does not confer the authority to issue information blocking orders under the IT Act.
It further declared that such orders can only be issued under Section 69A of the IT Act, read with the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, is misconceived and contrary to Section 79(3)(b) read with Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
It contended that grounds for issuing blocking orders under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, are in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, defence and 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 those issues.
The Union government stated that the impugned notices issued under Section 79(3)(b) and Rule 3(1)(d) Rules are also in the interest of decency or morality, in relation to contempt of court, defamation or any information which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force, and issues covered under Section 69A.
The Union government submitted that Section 69A explicitly grants power to the Central government to block access to information, complete with penal consequences for non-compliance, whereas Section 79 merely conditions the availability of safe harbour protection on intermediaries’ compliance with notifications regarding unlawful acts. X Corp has mistakenly conflated the concepts of “blocking orders” under Section 69A with “notices” under Section 79(3)(b).
The Central government contended that X Corp’s request to issue a writ restraining the Union ministries from taking coercive action, its representatives, employees, or officers for not joining the Censorship (Sahyog) Portal, and to quash the office memorandum to notify and designate nodal officers to handle unlawful content in cyberspace and notifications issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) is misconceived and contrary to rules. With counsel for petitioner seeking time to go through the objections and making submissions, Justice M Nagaprasanna adjourned the hearing to April 3.
Cybercrime data
Submitting cybercrime data in support of its blocking orders, the government stated that the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) established to facilitate reporting of cybercrime incidents by citizens received 56.28 lakh complaints, resulting in the registration of 1.37 lakh FIRs, from August 30, 2019, to December 31, 2024. The number of complaints stood at 2,55,745 in 2020, 4,52,429 in 2021 and increased to 22,68,346 in 2024, a five-fold (401%) increase between 2021 and 2024.