Legal questions behind the row over Satluj movie | Explained
A recent case in which a streaming platform withdrew a film from its Indian catalogue after government-linked review has revived questions about the legal basis on which online content can be ordered removed.
The removal followed a reference to an inter-departmental committee constituted under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, which examined the content and recommended action.
The episode has raised four recurring legal questions: whether the government can legally direct an OTT platform to take down content, what safeguards apply, whether such blocking orders can be kept confidential, and what remedies are available to an affected party.
A public interest petition has since been filed in a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking judicial review of the removal.
Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000
Section 69A empowers the Central Government to direct any intermediary to block public access to online information if it is satisfied that this is necessary in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, defence, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, or to prevent incitement to a cognisable offence relating to these. It is the primary statutory basis for online content-blocking orders in India, distinct from the film-specific certification regime under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
Key Details
- Inserted by the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008
- Grounds for blocking mirror the "reasonable restrictions" listed in Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which qualifies the Article 19(1)(a) right to freedom of speech and expression
- Non-compliance by an intermediary can attract imprisonment up to seven years and a fine under Section 69A(3)
The removal of the film from the platform was processed through this Section 69A mechanism rather than through the Central Board of Film Certification, which only certifies theatrical release, not OTT content.
The IT Blocking Rules, 2009 and the IT Rules, 2021
The Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 lay down the procedure for issuing blocking directions under Section 69A, including a Designated Officer, a review process, and — for emergencies — an Interim Blocking Order that can be issued without prior hearing, subject to later review. Part III of the IT Rules, 2021 (the Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules) extended government oversight to OTT/digital media content that falls outside CBFC's certification jurisdiction, giving the Ministry concerned the power to refer content to an inter-departmental committee before invoking Section 69A.
Key Details
- The 2009 Rules require a written blocking order recording reasons, considered by a screening/review committee before or after issuance
- The 2021 Rules created a self-regulation and grievance framework for digital media/OTT platforms, with government referral as a step of last resort
- A statutory Review Committee (chaired by the Cabinet Secretary at the Union level) must meet at least once every two months to examine whether existing blocking directions are consistent with Section 69A, and can order unblocking
The inter-departmental committee that examined the film operated under this 2021 framework before the platform's withdrawal of the content, illustrating how OTT content is routed through a parallel process to theatrical certification.
Confidentiality of Blocking Orders and the Right to Know
Rule 16 of the 2009 Blocking Rules mandates "strict confidentiality" regarding blocking requests, complaints, and actions taken — meaning the content creator or platform is often not shown the blocking order or the reasons behind it. This confidentiality requirement has itself been challenged as disproportionate, since it can prevent an affected party from mounting an effective legal challenge without first knowing the grounds for the order.
Key Details
- Rule 8 of the 2009 Rules also restricts disclosure of blocking requests to the originator prior to action in some circumstances
- In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 69A and the 2009 Rules, holding that Section 69A is a "narrowly drawn provision" with adequate safeguards — including the requirement that reasons be recorded in writing, enabling a writ petition under Article 226 — but did not strike down Rule 16's confidentiality mandate
- Rule 16's confidentiality requirement is currently under fresh constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court, with notice issued to the Union Government on a petition arguing it violates the right to know under Article 19(1)(a)
Confidentiality around the blocking process is precisely why the public and the affected filmmakers were left uncertain about the exact grounds for the film's withdrawal, prompting the subsequent High Court petition.
Legal Remedies Against a Blocking Order
Because a Section 69A blocking order must record reasons in writing, an affected party can challenge it before a High Court under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction) or the Supreme Court under Article 32, typically on grounds that the order exceeds the permissible restrictions under Article 19(2), or that principles of natural justice were denied. The order can also, in principle, be revisited by the statutory Review Committee under the 2009 Rules.
Key Details
- Article 226 empowers High Courts to issue writs (including certiorari and mandamus) for enforcement of fundamental rights and "any other purpose," giving it wider scope than Article 32
- Judicial review of executive blocking action tests both procedural compliance (was the correct process under the 2009/2021 Rules followed) and substantive proportionality (does the restriction fit within Article 19(2))
- Courts have generally been reluctant to substitute their own assessment of "national security" grounds for the executive's, applying a deferential standard of review in such cases
The pending High Court petition over the film's removal is precisely this remedy in action — testing whether the blocking process met the procedural and constitutional safeguards laid down in Shreya Singhal and the 2009/2021 Rules.
- Section 69A, IT Act 2000: inserted by the 2008 Amendment; blocking grounds track Article 19(2)'s reasonable restrictions
- IT Blocking Rules, 2009: require written reasons; Rule 16 mandates confidentiality of the process
- IT Rules, 2021 (Part III): governs OTT/digital media content outside CBFC's certification remit, via an inter-departmental committee mechanism
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): upheld Section 69A's constitutionality as a "narrowly drawn" provision with safeguards
- Review Committee under the 2009 Rules must meet at least once every two months to audit existing blocking orders
- Remedy against a blocking order: writ petition under Article 226 (High Court) or Article 32 (Supreme Court)