by
Torsha Sarkar, Gurshabad Grover
—
published
Feb 14, 2020
—
last modified
Feb 17, 2020 05:18 AM
—
filed under:
Internet Freedom,
Internet Governance,
Intermediary Liability,
Censorship
After Shreya Singhal v Union of India, commentators have continued to question the constitutionality of the content takedown regime under Section 69A of the IT Act (and the Blocking Rules issued under it). There has also been considerable debate around how the judgement has changed this regime: specifically about (i) whether originators of content are entitled to a hearing, (ii) whether Rule 16 of the Blocking Rules, which mandates confidentiality of content takedown requests received by intermediaries from the Government, continues to be operative, and (iii) the effect of Rule 16 on the rights of the originator and the public to challenge executive action. In this opinion piece, we attempt to answer some of these questions.
Located in
Internet Governance
/
Blog
