Blocking Rules 2009: Procedure and Safeguards under Section 69A

Section 69A grants the blocking power in a single subsection; everything that makes it workable and defensible sits in the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. Topic 62 placed the Rules in the cluster of State powers; this note, as asked, studies them separately and in full: the officers and the committee, the three routes to a blocking direction, the intermediary's duties, review and confidentiality, and the litigation from Shreya Singhal to the Sahyog case that has tested each stage.

1. The Statutory Foundation

• The design. Six grounds aligned to Article 19(2), written reasons, and a mandatory procedure: the Rules are not optional machinery but the condition on which the power exists (s.69A(2))
• What blocking is. Access by the public is disabled; the information itself is not seized or deleted, and nothing is acquired by the State, which separates s.69A from interception under s.69.
• The sanction. An intermediary that fails to comply with a blocking direction is punishable with imprisonment up to seven years and fine (s.69A(3))

2. The Officers and Committees

Figure 1: The four actors under the Rules

• Designated Officer. An officer of the Central Government not below the rank of Joint Secretary, designated under Rule 3; only he issues directions to block, on committee recommendation and approval, or on a court order.
• Nodal Officers. Every organisation, the Ministries and Departments of the Centre and the States and notified agencies, designates a Nodal Officer under Rule 4 and notifies MeitY. Requests reach the Designated Officer only through this channel, which filters casual demands.
• Committee for examination of blocking requests. Constituted under Rule 7, chaired by the Designated Officer with representatives, not below Joint Secretary, of the Ministries of Law and Justice, Home Affairs, Information and Broadcasting, and CERT-In. It examines whether the request falls within the s.69A grounds.
• Review Committee. The committee constituted under Rule 419A of the Telegraph Rules performs the review function (Rule 14): it meets at least once in two months to record whether the directions issued are in accordance with s.69A, and may set aside a direction and order unblocking.

3. The Ordinary Route

Figure 2: From complaint to direction under the Rules

• Complaint and request (Rules 5 and 6). Any person may send a complaint to the Nodal Officer of the organisation concerned. The organisation examines it, and if satisfied that blocking is justified, its Nodal Officer sends the request, with the printed sample of the offending information and its location, to the Designated Officer. A direction can also issue on the order of a competent court.
• Identification and the 48 hour notice (Rule 8). The Designated Officer, as chairperson of the committee, makes all reasonable efforts to identify the originator or the intermediary who hosted the information, and issues a notice to appear and submit a reply and clarifications within forty-eight hours. Where the originator or intermediary neither appears nor replies, the committee proceeds on the material before it.
• Committee examination and approval. The committee considers the request against the s.69A grounds and gives its specific recommendation. The Designated Officer forwards it to the Secretary, MeitY, and on the Secretary's approval directs the concerned agency or intermediary to block the information.
• State requests. A request from a State organisation travels through its Nodal Officer to the Designated Officer, keeping the blocking power itself with the Centre.
• Timelines. The scheme contemplates expeditious handling of requests at each stage, and the direction issues only after the committee and Secretary stages are complete, except in emergencies.

4. Emergency and Court Ordered Blocking

• Emergency blocking (Rule 9). Where no delay is acceptable because the information falls within the s.69A grounds and an emergency exists, the Designated Officer examines the request and submits his specific recommendation to the Secretary, MeitY, who may, if satisfied, issue an interim direction to block, without giving the originator or intermediary a hearing. The request must then be placed before the committee within forty-eight hours of the interim direction, and on its recommendation the Secretary confirms the direction or revokes it, in which case the material is unblocked.
• Scale. The mobile application bans beginning in 2020 proceeded on the emergency power, showing that Rule 9 can operate at the level of whole platforms, followed by hearings to the affected companies at the confirmation stage.
• Court ordered blocking (Rule 10). On receipt of a certified copy of a court order directing blocking of any information, the Designated Officer submits it to the Secretary and initiates action immediately. The committee examination is not repeated, since the adjudication has already happened before the court.

5. The Intermediary's Side, Records and Secrecy

Figure 3: Compliance by the intermediary

• Designated person (Rules 12, 13). Every intermediary designates a person to receive and handle blocking directions and notifies the Designated Officer. On receiving a direction, the designated person acknowledges it and ensures compliance, and the intermediary must not restore access unless the direction is revoked or set aside.
• Records (Rule 15). The Designated Officer maintains complete records of every request received and every action taken, the paper trail on which review and writ scrutiny depend.
• Confidentiality (Rule 16). Strict confidentiality shall be maintained regarding all the requests and complaints received and actions taken thereof. The rule protects complainants and security sensitivities, but it is also the Rules' most criticised feature, because the speaker whose content vanishes often cannot obtain the order to challenge it.

6. The Rules in the Courts

Figure 4: The litigation stage by stage

• Shreya Singhal (2015). Section 69A and the Rules were upheld: the grounds are narrow and 19(2)-aligned, reasons must be recorded so writ courts can test them, and Rule 8 builds in a pre-decisional hearing. The Court noted the confidentiality rule without striking it.
• Tanul Thakur (Del HC, 2022). The creator of a satirical website blocked years earlier had never received the order or a hearing. The court directed that the order be supplied and a post-decisional hearing given, establishing that Rule 8's hearing extends to the originator and that Rule 16 does not defeat the affected person's right to the order against him.
• The X Corp litigation. The 2023 Karnataka decision rejected the platform's challenge to account level blocking and unreasoned orders, with costs; the 2025 decision on the Sahyog portal held that intimations under Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 Rules are a separate route from s.69A, so the Blocking Rules' safeguards do not govern them, the holding that keeps the two takedown channels distinct (Topic 67)
• The open questions. Whether orders must be published or at least supplied as a matter of course, whether account-wide blocking is proportionate when specific URLs would do, and how long interim emergency blocks may persist, each returns to the tension between Rule 16 and Article 19.

7. Frequently Asked Questions

What is the procedure for blocking a website under Section 69A?

A complaint reaches the Nodal Officer of the organisation concerned, whose request goes to the Designated Officer. The Designated Officer identifies and notices the originator or intermediary to reply within 48 hours, the committee of Law, Home, Information and Broadcasting and CERT-In representatives examines the request against the Section 69A grounds, the Secretary, MeitY approves, and the Designated Officer directs the blocking. In emergencies the Secretary may issue an interim direction first, subject to committee consideration within 48 hours, and a court order is acted on immediately. The Review Committee tests all directions at least once in two months.

Can a person challenge a blocking order he was never shown?

Yes. Blocking orders are subject to writ jurisdiction, and in Tanul Thakur v. Union of India the Delhi High Court directed that the order be supplied to the originator and a post-decisional hearing be given, holding that the confidentiality rule does not defeat the affected person's right to know and contest the order against his own content.

8. Related Topics

• Topic 62: Sections 68 to 69B. The blocking power inside the State powers cluster.
• Topic 67: Section 79. The takedown route that runs beside blocking.