Information Technology Act, 2000
Important Cases on Website Blocking: Section 69A Case Law Explained
Section 69A survived constitutional challenge on the strength of its safeguards, and the later cases have tested how those safeguards work in practice: whether the blocked party gets the order and a hearing, how auto-blocking of defined content operates, and whether parallel routes bypass the section entirely. Topic 68 states the rules; this note, as asked, is the dedicated case digest.
1. The Case Line
Figure 1: Validation, practice and the parallel-route challenge
📖 Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1 (on s.69A) Context: Alongside s.66A, the blocking power under s.69A and the Blocking Rules, 2009 were challenged as an unconstitutional restraint on online speech. Held: s.69A upheld: unlike s.66A it is narrowly drawn to the Article 19(2) grounds, requires recorded reasons, routes decisions through a committee, and offers a pre-decisional hearing to the intermediary or originator where feasible; the Rule 16 confidentiality was read as not defeating these safeguards. The validation on which all later blocking litigation builds (Topics 59, 68). |
📖 Tanul Thakur v. Union of India, (2022) Delhi High Court Facts: A satirist's website was blocked without his being told of the order, the reasons, or any hearing, and his attempts to learn why went unanswered. Held: The originator has a right to be furnished the blocking order and to a post-decisional hearing: Rule 8 of the Blocking Rules was read to require a reasonable opportunity to the identified originator, and the opaque blocking was set right, the decision that put content into the safeguards Shreya Singhal assumed (Topic 68). |
- Sabu Mathew George v. Union of India (SC, 2017-18). On pre-natal sex determination advertisements: the Court directed search engines to auto-block results for specified sponsored terms and constituted a nodal mechanism, the leading foray into proactive filtering and its limits.
- Kamlesh Vaswani v. Union of India (SC, pending). The pornography blocking PIL: it produced list-based blocking directions, especially for child sexual abuse material, while exposing the difficulty of blocking private adult viewing, the case still before the Court (Topic 124)
- X Corp v. Union of India (Kar HC, 2023; 2025). The 2023 challenge to s.69A blocking orders that ended in a costs order against the platform; and the 2025 challenge to the Rule 3(1)(d) / Sahyog route, attacking it as a parallel blocking mechanism bypassing the s.69A safeguards, the current frontier (Topic 68)
- The Blocking Rules, 2009. The procedure the cases construe: a designated officer, the committee, 48-hour notice, Rule 9 emergency blocking, Rule 10 court orders and Rule 16 confidentiality (Topic 68)
2. Quick Revision
Figure 2: One line per case
⚠ Exam trap Pair the two pillars: Shreya Singhal upheld s.69A because of its safeguards, and Tanul Thakur made those safeguards real by granting the originator the order and a hearing under Rule 8. Add Sabu Mathew George for auto-blocking of defined content and X Corp for the live frontier, the 2023 costs order and the 2025 challenge to the Sahyog route as a parallel mechanism bypassing s.69A. Do not confuse s.69A blocking with the s.79 / Rule 3(1)(d) takedown route, which is exactly the distinction X Corp litigates. |
3. Frequently Asked Questions
Why was Section 69A upheld when Section 66A was struck down?
Because of its safeguards. In Shreya Singhal the Court found Section 69A narrowly tied to the Article 19(2) grounds and procedurally disciplined by the Blocking Rules, recorded reasons, a committee, a hearing to the intermediary or originator where feasible, and limited scope, where Section 66A was vague, overbroad and unanchored. Tanul Thakur later gave the safeguards teeth by holding that the blocked originator is entitled to the order and a hearing under Rule 8, and the X Corp litigation now tests whether parallel routes bypass these protections.
4. Related Topics
- Topic 68: Blocking Rules 2009. The Section 69A procedure in full.
- Topic 117: Safe Harbour Cases. The distinct Section 79 takedown route.