Section 69A is a provision within the Information Technology Act, 2000, which grants the Central Government the power to direct the blocking of public access to online information. This section was not part of the original Act but was introduced through an amendment in 2008 to address the need for a legal mechanism to regulate content on the internet.
The provision empowers the Central Government, or an officer it specially authorizes (the Designated Officer), to issue a blocking order for any information "generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted" on a computer resource. This power can only be exercised if deemed necessary in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, or for preventing incitement to a cognizable offence related to these grounds. The mechanism for this is detailed in the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. Crucially, the reasons for the blocking order must be recorded in writing.
The constitutionality of Section 69A was challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court in the landmark 2015 judgment of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. The Court affirmed that Section 69A is a valid restriction on the freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) because its grounds align with the reasonable restrictions permitted under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. This judgment simultaneously struck down the controversial Section 66A of the IT Act for being unconstitutionally vague. The Court noted that Section 69A contains safeguards, such as the requirement for a reasoned order, which Section 66A lacked. Intermediaries who fail to comply with a blocking direction under Section 69A(1) face punishment with imprisonment up to seven years and a fine.