PIL challenging the government's decision to block WeTransfer and Telegram withdrawn by petitioner

Case: Abha Singh v. Union of India & Ors

On Monday, after the Supreme Court suggested the petitioner should first go to the Bombay High Court, the petitioner withdrawn a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging the government's decision to block websites such as WeTransfer and Telegram. A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Vikram Nath told the petitioner, advocate Abha Singh, that the Bombay High Court is the appropriate forum to grant relief in the matter.

The PIL petition argued that the websites were blocked without following the proper procedure laid out in the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, which were formulated under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Additionally, due to the provision of confidentiality under Rule 16 of these rules, the entire blocking process was shrouded in secrecy, the plea stated. The plea sought the removal of the confidentiality provision under Rule 16 of the said Rules.

The petitioners also argued that multiple and recurring instances of arbitrary blocking practices have come to light, which impede citizens' right to information and the right to freely communicate over the internet as per Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. They have claimed that these arbitrary blocking practices are violative of citizens' fundamental rights.

The petitioner challenging the government's decision to block websites has made the following grounds:

1. The confidentiality provision under Rule 16 of the 2009 Rules is violative of the Right to Information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
2. Subordinate legislation, Rule 16, conflicts with parliamentary legislation, Section 22 of the Right to Information Act of 2005. Observed in Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. v. Union of India, this goes against the well-established principle that subordinate legislation must yield to plenary legislation.
3. Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India and the principles of natural justice are violated by the non-publication of Blocking Orders and findings of the Review Committee.
4. Parallel blocking procedures violate the well-established rule in Hukam Chand Shyam Lal v. Union of India that things must be done the way they are enacted or else not be done at all.
5. Internet Service Providers' over-blocking and suo-motu blocking of content is illegal and goes against the spirit of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.