First thing on the morning of Tuesday, February 13, Caravan magazine, in a public statement said that they have been asked to remove the story and video investigating alleged torture of 25 civilians and deaths of three others by Indian army in Kashmir within 24 hours. The order is under section 69A of the IT Act. Caravan will be challenging the order.
“We have received an order from the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, under section 69A of the IT Act, asking us to remove the following story within 24 hours:
https://caravanmagazine.in/crime/indian-army-torture-jammu-and-kashmir-poonch-bjp-gujjar-bakkerwal
The deeply reported story, by Jatinder Tur, gives details of how the Indian army, in a coordinated operation, tortured 25 civilians and murdered 3, including an IB source. The story was published in the Feb issue of the magazine.
The content of the notice is confidential and hence the magazine is not able to disclose it
“We will be challenging the order
This is to inform readers we have received an order from the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting under Section 69A of the IT Act, directing us to take down this story in 24 hrs:https://t.co/wbaEfoZsJ8.
The order’s content is confidential. We will be challenging this order.
— The Caravan (@thecaravanindia) February 13, 2024
What is section 69A?
Section 69A empowers the Union Government to block the public from accessing “any information” on the internet when: (1) the Government believes it is “necessary or expedient”; and (2) it is in the interests of the defence, sovereignty, integrity, or security of India or its relations with foreign states, public order, or the incitement of a cognisable offence relating to these categories. When the government decides to block content, it must follow the procedure set out under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009
Though extensively commented upon at the time and since, the constitutionality of Section 69A was challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal v the Union (2015). The Court observed that blocking could only be resorted to in the interests of the security or defence of India, public order etc., which the Court highlighted were the same interests Article 19(2) of the Constitution permitted free speech to be restricted on. According to the Court, this demonstrated that Section 69A restricted expression in line with constitutional standards on free speech.
In arriving at this, the Court stated that the “Blocking Rules ensured sufficient procedural safeguards against the Government restricting lawful speech by providing not just the intermediary, but also the content originator, with a hearing (if the latter could be identified). Moreover, the Court noted that blocking orders had to be made in writing, thus ensuring that “they may be assailed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.” Meaning thereby if the actual motive behind the government’s decision is to block specific content was in fact an effort to restrict free speech, the said blocking order could be challenged before a court under its writ jurisdiction. Even this conclusion has been adversely commented upon by legal experts and commentators.
Related:
One in Manipur, another in Kashmir: Veterans slam two faces of Indian Army
Governor’s Rule: Hasn’t the Indian Army Always Had A “Free Hand”?