Image by Giovana Fleck, used with permission.

This story is part of Data Narratives, a Civic Media Observatory project that aims to identify and understand the discourse on data used for governance, control, and policy in El Salvador, Brazil, Turkey, Sudan, and India. Read more about the project here and see our public dataset for the full analysis covered in the text below. 

In recent years, the Indian government has been proactive in expanding its control over online spaces, and website blocking has been a strategic tool in its arsenal. A report last updated in March 2024 by digital rights organization Geeks for Geeks observed that 55,607 websites were blocked between 2015 and 2023. Around 48 percent of the websites were blocked under the Information Technology Act (IT Act). These blocks have targeted independent news websites, hate speech trackers, and streaming websites.

The expansive targeting of websites becomes particularly concerning as the existing laws give the government leeway to not disclose the reasons for blocking a website. The law gives the government power to arbitrarily block content, which can create a chilling effect on free speech and expression, specifically when the targets are independent news websites. Moreover, the power to block websites, which was earlier limited to only the Ministry of Electronic and Information Technology, was also conferred to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting as of 2021. This indicates that government power over online spaces has only been expanding.

To disclose or not to disclose

Existing laws in India, specifically Section 69A of the Information and Technology Act (IT Act), allow the government to shut down websites to protect India's sovereignty and integrity, defense and security, ensure no harm to friendly relations with other countries, maintain public order, and prevent incitement to commit offences. However, the meaning of these conditions is not clearly defined in Indian jurisprudence, allowing leeway for broad interpretation. On top of vague interpretation, Rule 16 of the Blocking Rules of 2009 allows the government to keep the reasons for the blocking confidential if the government claims that the blocking is done for national security reasons. This means the government does not have to disclose which websites they have blocked and the reasons or grounds for blocking. Because of this clause, many Right to Information applications filed by civil society that sought a list of blocking orders issued by the government were denied. Ultimately, because the reasons for the blocking are not disclosed upfront, it becomes difficult to hold the government accountable for it. While these blocking orders can eventually be challenged in the courts, there is no recourse apart from going through long-drawn court battles while the websites remain blocked.

The Data Governance Observatory's research shows that websites like Hindutva Watch, India Hate Lab, and Kashmirwalla have been the targets of secret blocking orders. The confidential nature of these blocking orders gives the government a strategic advantage, as it can issue takedown notices for websites that represent dissenting voices. Knowing that the government cannot be held accountable for these blocking orders right away without going through a long-drawn legal battle creates a chilling effect on minority voices that speak against the government and the Indian state.

For example, in the particular instance of blocking the website of a news organization, Kashmirwalla, operating out of Kashmir reporting on issues in the region of Jammu and Kashmir, the website was just taken down without any adequate notice. In response to this, many news organizations and civil society organizations expressed their condemnation of the government's action. They claimed that blocking the Kashmirwalla without disclosure of the ground of takedown impacted the representation of voices from Kashmir, which remains a sensitive and conflict-ridden region in India and has already been facing frequent internet shutdowns. Within their condemnation of the government's action, journalist organizations like Committee to Protect Journalists, Network of women in Media in India, and Editors Guild India also highlighted that taking down the websites that represent dissenting voices has become a trend, creating a chilling effect on the voicing of opinions and perspectives that go against the state.

The ever-expanding remit of the state

Though the framing of the IT Act and the blocking rules do limit the government's ability to not disclose the reasons for blocking, the Indian government continues to use blocking orders to discipline online spaces.

Apart from targeting dissenting voices and news websites, the government has also targeted websites like Dowry Calculator, a satirical website that aims to raise awareness about the issue of dowry. When the website's owner challenged the government order, and the court obligated the ministry to disclose the reasons for the blocking, it defended the blocking order, claiming that the website could lead nudge people to commit the offence, and so it argued by the government that website would lead to abetment to commit the offence. However, there is no proof that any offence has been committed because of the website. The blocking of Dowry Calculator showcases that the government can issue blocking orders without any legitimate reason, and now there is growing intolerance even for satirical representation.

From blocking news websites to satirical websites, the government has also blocked  streaming websites on grounds of showing obscene content. While the determination of obscenity remains a complex matter, and courts also adopt specific legal tests to determine if the content is obscene or not, the government issues blocking orders without any such tests. Again, there is no determination of whether the content is in fact obscene. Instead, the government just wants to show that it holds the power to discipline online spaces. The blocking of streaming websites came after they were issued a warning from the Minister of Information and Broadcasting to stop showing obscene content. The warning and the subsequent blocking of streaming websites signaled that if government demands are not met, the websites will be blocked and/or taken down. With the government already trying to impose more content norms on streaming with the proposed Broadcast Bill, the website blocking adds to the uncertainty and pressure felt by a creative community that is already feeling the pressure of self-censorship pending such regulations.

Whether it is blocking news websites, satirical expression, or streaming websites, the government's actions indicate to creators and journalists that it remains a strong intervening force in online spaces.

‘It must be justified if the government is doing it’

The research by the Data Governance Observatory found that when the reasons for blocking websites are not disclosed, right-leaning publications and entities come up with their own reasons for it. For example, the blocking of Kashmirwalla was interpreted as the government taking proactive steps to stop Islamic propaganda. This showcases the way narratives around website blocking are created by Hindu rights groups, which add to an already polarized environment where dissenting voices are under institutional pressure.

Even for blocking streaming websites, there is an agreement that this would help curtail obscenity online; however, this narrative again covers up the fact that this promotes a trend of government censorship. The support around website blocking legitimizes government action in a popular sense, deflecting from the fact that due process needs to be followed in government action.