The Section 69 A of the Information Technology Act which allows blocking of access to websites against the use of inflammatory contents has huge loopholes and should be revised as it does not give the aggrieved parties to have a say before the contents are actually blocked, said legal experts on Saturday.The Department of Telecom (DoT) has asked internet service providers to block access to URL of University Grants Commission (UGC) apart from over 70 other URLs having defamatory content on business school Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM).The pages also have reports on IIPM's head Arindam Chaudhuri.It also includes pages of reports written by media firms and bloggers such as Caravan, Outlook Magazine, The Indian Express, The Economic Times, Faking News and The Wall Street Journal.Pages of spoof sites such as Faking New and Unreal Times have also been blocked.The move was followed after a court in Gwalior issued an order asking the DoT to block these URLs."There are huge loopholes in the existing laws on blocking of websites. It consists of wide and vaguely defined terms which can be problematic and can be misused for an individual or a party's goodwill," Pawan Duggal, a lawyer in the field of Cyberlaw told DNA."The current system is so defective that it does not allow the aggrieved party to be heard," he added.Section 69 of the IT Act says online content can be intercepted, monitored or decrypted, if satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so in the interest of soverignity of or integrity of India, defense of India, security of state, friendly relations with foreign states etc.A similar misuse of the IT Act had taken place when two girls in Mumbai were arrested over their Facebook post questioning the shutdowqn in  in the city for Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray's funeral under section 66 A.  Criticising the DoT's move, UGC which is one of the aggrieved parties told DNA that UGC is a government body and it has proper authorisation to put content about institutions ."It is a responsible act of UGC to inform the public at large as to which institutions are eligible to award degrees. If IIPM is not a government institution or recognized by the MHRD then it is not authorized to award degrees," MM Ansari, UGC Commission member  told DNA."In fact it is not just IIPM alone but a range of other institutions which are commercializing education. Blocking the URL is motivated and unfortunate," he added.According to Ansari, there should be provision where UGC should have been told or taken content from.

COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

Section 69A(1) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, empowers the central government to direct any government agency or intermediary to block public access to any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource.

And under Section 69A(3) of the IT Act, an intermediary that does not comply with a direction for blocking is liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and with a fine.

"All directives of courts are binding on a government. If the adversely affected party wants to move the higher court they are free to do so," a senior Department of Telecom (DoT) executive told DNA on the basis of anonymity.