ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1.Whether the petitioner has committed any offence under sec.306 and 120B of IPC ?

No the petitioner has not committed any offence under sec. 306 and 120B of IPC. It is “free
consent “ required to agree to the terms and conditions of the game. One of such terms and
conditions of the game is that the user has to be above the age of 18 years to register and play
the game.

There is no abatement to suicide as such as the take given was supposed to be individual
competence and observance.

Free consent. ... Parties to a contract may agree upon the same thing in the same sense, and
along with the same; ‘consent’ received must be’ free’ from any compulsion or pressure.
Lack of free consent would render the contract voidable at the option of the party not at fault.

The game being challenging in nature, caught immediate attention of the users especially
children and youngsters. It became a big hit and popular among the people throughout the
world including Indica.

The player gets addicted to it and the player to commit suicide after drawing an image of Red
Ox on his hand.

State of Pride after due deliberation have registered crime under sec 306 and 120B of IPC
against the company for abatement of suicide by conspirating with the administrators. The
player gets addicted to it and the player to commit suicide after drawing an image of Red Ox
on his hand.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code : Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits
suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Suicide has not been declared as a crime by the IPC obviously because once a person
successfully commits suicide, that person is no longer alive to be prosecuted and the crime
abates with him. However, an attempt to commit suicide is punishable under sec 309. An
abetment to commit suicide is also made punishable under sections 305 and 306 IPC .
These sections are based on a reasonable public policy to prevent other persons involvement,
instigation and aiding in terminating one’s life. It take care of situations and threats imposed
by death baiters.
To make out a case of abetment, there must be some active suggestion/instigation
.provocation, incitement or encouragement by the accused to a person to do an act. The
offence of abetment must confirm to the
Definition of the term ‘abetment’ given in sec 107. There must be instigation, cooperation or
intentional assistance given to the would-be suicide. Neither a mere suggestion nor a casual
remark suggesting a suicide to commit suicide amounts to abetment to commit suicide. It is
not necessary , nor indeed is it a part of the definition, that the suicide should have been
committed in consequence of the abetment. But, in order to render a person liable as an
abettor, it is necessary that the abettor should do something more than remaining a mute
spectator. But, sometimes, it is conceivable that even the person mere presence as spectator
may encourage a person to do a deed, which she might otherwise refrain from. In such cases,
the question whether mere presence amounted to intentionally aiding another will have to be
decided.

Intention/ mens rea- an essential ingredient to establish offence under Section 306 of
IPC

There is no intention/ mensrea as such as the take given was supposed to be individual
competence and observance, so the petitioner has not committed offence under sec306.

Sanju alias Sanjay Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh– in the case the Apex Court quashed
the charge sheet for offence under Section 306 of IPC to hold that the words uttered in a
quarrel or on the spur of moment, such as “to go and die” cannot be taken to be uttered
with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger or emotion.

"In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of
suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the
commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing
certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide."

The Supreme Court reiterated that conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code
(Abetment of Suicide) is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being
any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led
or compelled the person to commit suicide.

The word suicide in itself is nowhere defined in the Indian Penal Code, however its meaning
and import is well known and requires no explanation. `Sui’ means `self’ and `cide’ means
`killing’, thus implying an act of self-killing. In short a person committing suicide must commit
it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing
himself.

Section 120A in The Indian Penal Code :Definition of criminal conspiracy.—When two or
more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,
(1) an illegal act, or

(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal
conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall
amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or
more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. Explanation.—It is immaterial whether
the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.

Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code: Punishment of criminal conspiracy

(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death,
2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall,
where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be
punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.

(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an
offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.

Volenti non fit iniuria (or injuria) :

(Latin: "to a willing person, injury is not done") is a common law doctrine which states
that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing
that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other
party in tort or delict. Volenti applies only to the risk which a reasonable person would
consider them as having assumed by their actions; thus a boxer consents to being hit, and to
the injuries that might be expected from being hit, but does not consent to (for example) his
opponent striking him with an iron bar, or punching him outside the usual terms of
boxing. Volenti is also known as a "voluntary assumption of risk."
Volenti is sometimes described as the plaintiff "consenting to run a risk." In this
context, volentican be distinguished from legal consent in that the latter can prevent
some torts arising in the first place. For example, consent to a medical procedure prevents the
procedure from being a trespass to the person, or consenting to a person visiting one's land
prevents them from being a trespasser.

In Law of Torts, Volenti non-fit injuria is an exception to liability in torts.

It means: Where the sufferer is willing, no injury is done.
No act is actionable as a tort at the suit of a person who has expressly or impliedly assented to
it.
In order to plead this defense, it is necessary that the plaintiff should have consented to
physical risk or damage as well as to legal risk (i.e he will get no remedy in law).
Essential Condition:

 Consent must be given freely

 Consent must not have been given to an illegal act
 Knowledge of risk is not the same thing as consent to run the risk

Smith vs Baker (1891) AC 325:

"One who has invited or assented to act being done toward him cannot, when he suffers from
it, complain of it as a wrong".

Other Exceptions to Tort liability:

 Act of God
 Inevitable accident
 Necessity
 Private Defence
 Statutory Authority
 Parental and Quasi-Parental Authority

Section 14. "Free consent" defined

Consent is said to be free when it is not caused by-

(1) coercion, as defined in section 15, or

(2) undue influence, as defined in section 16, or

(3) fraud, as defined in section 17, or

(4) misrepresentation, as defined in section 18, or

(5) mistake, subject to the provisions of sections 20, 21, and 22.

Consent is said to be so caused when it would not have been given but for the existence of such
coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake.

‘Coercion’ is the committing, or threatening to commit, any act forbidden by the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860) or the unlawful detaining, or threatening to detain, any property, to
the prejudice of any person whatever, with the intention of causing any person to enter into
an agreement.”

Undue Influence :When the parties to the contract are in relationships in such a way that one
party can dominate the will of the other and uses the unfair advantage so gained to obtain the
consent of the other party, then the consent is said to have been obtained by undue
influence. Now, the Contract Act 1872 also provides instances where a person can dominate
the will of another. These instances are:

 Where a person has a real or apparent authority over the other.

 Where a person has a fiduciary relationship with the other.
 Where a person enters into a contract with another whose mental capacity is
affected, either temporarily or permanently.

Fraud :Consent is not said to be free when it has been obtained by means of fraud. In such
cases, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the party whose consent was obtained
by means of fraud. Moreover, fraud is also a tort where action for damages can lie. The
Indian Contract Act, 1872 gives the definition of the term ‘Fraud’. The law provides five acts
which when committed either by the party or with his assistance or by his agent, with the
intention to deceive the other party, amounts to fraud. Those acts are as follows:

 A suggestion, as to a fact which is false, by a party who believes it to be false.

 An active concealment of a fact by a party
 A promise made without any intention of fulfilling it.
 Any other act which can deceive.
 Any act or omission which the law specifically provides to be fraudulent

Misrepresentation :Misrepresentation under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 has an

exhaustive definition and can be divided into 3 types.

 The first type is when a statement is made by a person, about a fact which is not
true, though he believes it to be true.
 Second is the type when there is a breach of duty by a person who is making the
false statement and he gains some kind of advantage even though it wasn’t his
intention to deceive the other party.
 The third is the type where if one party acting innocently, causes the other party to
make any mistake with regards to the subject matter of the agreement.

Mistake :When one of the parties has given its consent to the contract under some kind of
misunderstanding then the consent is said to be have been given by mistake. If it wasn’t for
the misunderstanding the party would not have entered into the agreement. Under contract
law, a mistake can of two kinds: 1) Mistake of Law and 2) Mistake of Fact.
“Free Consent is absolutely essential to make an agreement a valid contract. The importance
of free consent cannot be stressed enough. Consent of the parties to the contract must be free
and voluntarily. Consent to the contract has to be given without any kind of pressure or
delusions. It is important that the consent given by the parties is free as this can affect the
validity of the contract. If the consent to the agreement was obtained or induced by coercion,
undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake, then it has the potential to make the
agreement void.”

2.Whether the State of Pride has violated the rights of petitioner enshrined under
Art.14,19(1)(a) and19(1)(g) read with Art.21?
State of Pride Violation of Article 14,19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) read with Art.21 of the
Constitution: The petitioners have also argued that violates the right to equality,
fundamental right of freedom of expression and as granted under Article 14 of the
Constitution:
Articles 14, 19 & 21 are for the part III of the Indian constitution . Article 14 is Equality
before law which says that everyone is equal before law. Article 19 include six freedoms
which then includes freedom of speech n expression, freedom to move freely within the
territory of India, right to form association and unions, right to assemble anywhere
peacefully, right to reside n settle in any part of the country, freedom to carry out any
occupation. Article 21 includes right to life n personal liberty. Article 14 come under Right to
equality n article 19&21 comes under Right to freedom.

Article 14: Equality Before Law : Right to equality is one of the basic feature of the
constitution. It means equality among equals ; all should be treated equally or there should be
equal protection of law in the territory of India.

Art.14 also talks about Rule of law i.e law (equality) is above everyone. Law is supreme.

This Article prescribes for equality before law. It ensures that no citizen of the country is
denied equality before law or equal protection of law within the territorial limits of India or
prohibition on the grounds of race, caste, religion, sex or place of birth.
The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the
laws within the territory of India. The petitioners argued that the right to equality as provided
for under the Constitution is violated, on the
basis that “there is no intelligible differentia between the medium of print, broadcast, and real
live speech as opposed to speech on the internet and, therefore, new categories of criminal
offences cannot be made on this ground”.

Before this event there were few more games like- ‘CokemanGo’ of the similar nature which
were banned by the government. But no criminal case was registered against them. The state
violating the Art 14 of Indian Constitution.

Article 19(1)(a) All citizens shall have the right (a) to freedom of speech and
expression: Freedom to speech and expression (this includes freedom of press, to go on
strike, expression of opinion publicly but has a restriction, it should not amount to
defamation, etc)

The state can impose restrictions on this right on the grounds of sovereignty and
integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public
order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation and incitement to an offence.

Prima facie, the expression equality before the law or the equal protection of the
laws’may seem to be identical , but, before the law is a somewhat negative concept
implying the absence

In Sakal Papers [P] Ltd. & Ors.. v. The Union of India [(1962)] 3 SCR 842]

what fell for consideration was the Newspaper [Price and age] Act, 1956 which empowered
the Central Government to regulate the prices of newspapers in relation to their pages and
size and also to regulate the allocation of space for advertising matters and the Central
Government order made under the said Act, viz., the Daily Newspaper [Price and Page]
Order, 1960 which fixed the maximum number of pages that might be published by the
newspaper according to the price charged and prescribing the nature of supplements that
could be issued. The Court held that the Act and the Order were void being violative
of Article 19 [1] (a) of the Constitution. They were also not saved by Article 19 [2]. The
Court asserted that the free- dom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19 [1]

Audi alteram partem means ‘ hear the other side’, or ‘no man should be condemned
unheared’ or ‘both the sides must be heard before passing any order’.

Principle Explained:
The second fundamental principle of natural justice is audi alteram partem, i.e., no man
should be condemned unheard, or both the sides must be heard before passing any order. De
Smith[1]says, ‘ no proposition can be more clearly established than that a man cannot incur
the loss of liberty or property for an offence by a judicial proceeding until he has had a fair
opportunity of answering the case against him’. A party is not to suffer in person or in purse
without an opportunity of being heard’. This is the first principle of civilized jurisprudence
and is accepted by laws of men and god. In short, before an order is passed against any
person, reasonable opportunity of being heard must be given to him. Generally, this maxim
includes two elements: (i) Notice; and (ii) Hearing.

(A) Notice:
Before any action is taken, the affected party must be given a notice to show cause against the
proposed action and seek his explanation. It is a sine qua non of the right of fair hearing. Any
order passed without giving notice is against the principles of natural justice and is void ab
initio. Before taking any action, it is the right of the person to know the facts. Without
knowing the facts of the case, no one can defend himself. The right to notice means the right
of being known. The right to know the facts of the suit or case happens at the start of any
hearing. Therefore, notice is a must to start a hearing. A notice must contain the time, place
and date of hearing, jurisdiction under with the case is filed, the charges, and proposed action
against the person. All these things should be included in a notice to make it proper and
adequate. Whenever a statute makes it clear that a notice must be issued to the party and if no
compliance or failure to give notice occurs, this makes the act void. The article should
contain all the essentials to it. If it only contains the charges but not the ground or time or
date, then the notice must be held invalid and vague. Non-issue of the notice or any defective
service of the notice do not affect the jurisdiction of the authority but violates the principle of
natural justice.

In bagg case[2], James Bagg, a Chief Burgess of Plymouth had been disfranchised for
unbecoming conduct in as much as it was alleged that he had told the Mayor, ‘ you are a
cozening knave. I will make thy neck crack’ and by ‘turning the hinder part of his body in an
inhuman and uncivil manner’ towards the mayor, said, ‘come and kiss’ he was reinstated by
mandamus as no notice or hearing was given to him before passing the impugned order.

(B) Hearing: - Oral or Personal Hearing- How Far Necessary:

The second ingredient of audi alteram partam (hear the other side) rule is the rule of hearing.
If the order is passed by the authority without providing the reasonable opportunity of being
heard to the person affected by it adversely will be invalid and must be set aside as in the
cases of Harbans Lal v. Commissioner[7], National Central Co-operative Bank v. Ajay
Kumar[8]and Fateh Singh v. State of Rajasthan[9]. The reasonable opportunity of hearing
which is also well known as 'fair hearing' is an important ingredient of the audi alteram
partem rule. This condition may be complied by the authority by providing written or oral
hearing which is the discretion of the authority, unless the statue under which the action being
taken by the authority provides otherwise. Thus like U.S.A. and England, the Courts in India
do not consider the right to oral or personal hearing as part of the principle of Audi Alteram
Partem unless the statue under which the action is taken by the authority provides for the oral
or personal hearing unless it is not indicated at without oral or personal hearing the person
cannot adequately present. Personal or oral hearing is important when the context requires it
was required in the case of A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras. It is the duty of the authority
who will ensure that the affected party may be given an opportunity of oral or personal
hearing if the context requires otherwise. However, the above rule of fair hearing requires
that the affected party should be given an opportunity to meet the case against him effectively
and this may also be achieved by providing opportunity to the affected person by making
'written representation' instead of oral or personal hearing as was provided in the case
of Union of India v. J.P. Mitter.

“State has not given petitioner an opportunity of hearing while imposing ban on their
application. Thus, it violated fundamental rights of the petitioner”

Article 19(1)(g) Practice any profession or to carry any occupation, trade or

business (this is the reason prostitution is not illegal in India but have some reasonable
restrictions)

Article 19 (1) (g) of Constitution of India provides Right to practice any profession or to
carry on any occupation, trade or business to all citizens subject to Art.19 (6) which
enumerates the nature of restriction that can be imposed by the state upon the above
right of the citizens.1 Sub clause (g) of Article 19 (1) confers a general and vast right
available to all persons to do any particular type of business of their choice. But this
does not confer the right to do anything consider illegal in eyes of law or to hold a
particular job or to occupy a particular post of the choice of any particular person. 2
Further Art 19(1) (g) does not mean that conditions be created by the state or any
statutory body to make any trade lucrative or to procure customers to the
business/businesssman3 . Moreover a citizen whose occupation of a place is unlawful
cannot claim fundamental right to carry on business in such place since the fundamental
rights cannot be availed in the justification of an unlawful act or in preventing a
statutory authority from lawfully discharging its statutory functions.

Article 21: Right To Life And Personal Liberty

This Article is the most fundamental of all and is also the most difficult to define.

Right to life including right to live with dignity, necessities of life i.e food, shelter, education,
water, environment, employment, etc.

Personal Liberty means right to move freely.

Art.21 includes right to sleep, right to excretion, right to get pollution free water, air and
environment, right to legal aid, right to fair and speedy trial, right to electricity, etc

Directorate Of Film Festivals And Others v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain And Others :
As the High Court found that the requirement relating to certification by the Board was
violative of Article 14 and, therefore, invalid, it did not examine the issue with
reference to Article 19(1)(..., for National Film Awards, to only films certified by the
Central Board of Film Certification, is an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental
right of film-makers, violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the.... 15. The right of a film-
maker to make and exhibit his film, is a part of his fundamental right of freedom of
speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
Air India v. Nergesh Meerza And Others

Between these two members who are similarly circumstanced is clearly

violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (2) Ev...within four years is
manifestly unreasonable and wholly arbitrary and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and should, therefore, be struck
down...Article 14 of the Constitution. A second limb of the argument which flows from
the first contention was that the AHs were selected for hostile discrimination by the
Corporation.

In United States v. James Griggs Raines

It was held that one to whom application of statute is constitutional
cannot be heard to attack the statute on the ground that impliedly if it applied to other
persons it might be unconstitutional. These observations, in opinion, furnish a complete
answer to the argument of the petitioners that Article 14 is violated in the instant case.

Unni Mammu Haji v. State Of Kerala

State in exercise of its own independent legislative powers for its alleged violation of Art.
14 it cannot be contrasted with laws enacted by other States.”We, therefore, overrule the
contention that S. 4 ...violation of Arts. 14, 19 and 31, only in cases where the legislation
was for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing the directives in Cl. (b)
or Cl. (c) of Art. 39 of the Constitution...challenge against the validity of the Act as
violative of Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution has to be judged in the light of all these
circumstances.

Prithvi Raj v. State Of Rajasthan

Petitioner of his liberty under a procedure, which is not reasonable, fair & just, and that
such deprivation amounts to violation of his fundamental right under Art. 21 of the
Constitution of India. He has...procedure which is not reasonable, fair or just, then such
deprivation would be violative of his fundamental right under Art. 21 and that he would
be entitled to enforce such fundamental right and secure his...Art. 21 of the Constitution
of India.7. In Sheela Barse v. Union of India, (2) their lordships of the Supreme Court
have observed that if an accused is not tried speedily..

3.Whether imposing ban on the application “RedOx” u/s 69A of Information

Technology Act is constitutionally valid?
69A Power to issue directions for blocking for public access of any information
through any computer resource. -

(1) Where the Central Government or any of its officer specially authorised by it in
this behalf is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, in the interest of sovereignty
and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign
States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable
offence relating to above, it may subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) for reasons to be
recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the Government or intermediary to block
for access by the public or cause to be blocked for access by the public any information
generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource.
 (2) The procedure and safeguards subject to which such blocking for access by the
public may be carried out, shall be such as may be prescribed.
(3) The intermediary who fails to comply with the direction issued under sub-section
(1) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and
shall also be liable to fine.

the government to block for access by the public any online information in the interest of
sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the state, friendly relations
with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any
cognizable offence relating to the

The petitioners have argued that Section 69A of the Act and the rules framed under Section
69A, which provide a detailed procedure for the blocking of websites and content are
unconstitutional as they do not provide an opportunity for the ‘originator’ of the information
being blocked to be heard and do not provide for procedural safeguards as seen in other laws
such as the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for similar offences.

Section 69A has been added in the Information Technology Act ,2000 by the Information
Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. Section 69A is dedicated to this subject of issuing
directions for blocking for public access of any information through any computer resource.

When one examines sec 69A, one realizes that while the powers under sec 69A have been
conferred booth on the Central and State Governments, the power to issue directions for
blocking for public access of any information through any computer resource can only be
exercised by the Central Government or by any of its offices specially authorized by it in this
regard. The power under section 67A can only be exercised if the Central Government or any
of its officers are satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to give directions for blocking for
public access of any information through any computer resource on certain stipulated grounds
as detailed below:

1. Sovereignty and integrity of India,

2. Defense of India,
3. Security of the State,
4. Friendly relations with foreign states,
5. Public order,
6. Preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above.

Section 69A categorically provides that the power can only be exercised after reasons are
recorded in writing for the exercise of such powers. Further exercise of such powers are
subject to provisions of 69A(2).

Section 69A provides that blocking for access by the public may be carried out subject to
certain procedures or safeguards which shall be such as may be prescribed.

It is pertinent to note that the Government has notified the Information Technology
(Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules,
2009.
 These Rules have specifically stipulated that the Central Government shall designate, by
notification in the Official Gazette, an officer of the Central Government not below the
rank of a Joint Secretary as the designed officer for the purposes of issuing directions for
blocking for access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored
or hosted in any computer resource, as detailed under section 69A of the Information
Technology Act, 2000.

The Rule stipulate that every organization, for the purposes of these Rules, have to
mandatorily designate one of its officers as the Nodal Officer. The designated officer of
the Government , either on receipt of the request form Nodal Officer of an organization or
competent court, will, by order direct any agency of the Government or intermediary to
block for access by the public any information or part thereof which is generated,
transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any of the computer resource, as per section
69A(1).

The Government has felt that the directions for blocking for public access of any
information through any computer source is a serious matter. As such, any intermediary
who fails to comply with the directions issued under section 69A(1), commits a serious
offence is punishable for a term which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to
fine. Thus, the intermediaries have been exposed to criminal penalty for the purpose of
ensuring that they strictly follow all directions for blocking for public access of any
information, through any computer resource in India.

If the Central government is convinced it has a valid reason, then it must follow the blocking
procedure set out in the Blocking Rules, which were notified on 27 October 2009. Before
entering into an analysis of the Blocking Rules, let us understand the blocking procedure
The Blocking Rules stipulate that the entire blocking procedure, from examining a blocking
request to issuing a blocking direction, must be carried out within 7 days from the date on
which the DO receives the blocking request from the NO [Rule 11].
The central government must have a designated officer “not below the rank of a Joint
Secretary” for the aim of issuing direction for blocking under Section 69. Nodal officers
receive complaints on behalf of central and state governments, and after assessment, forward
these complaints to the designated officer. The grievance shall be examined by a Committee
of government Personnel who initially have to build all affordable efforts to identify the
originator or intermediary (hosting companies/ISPs/telecom operators/Social Media
sites/publications) who has hosted the data. The intermediary will be asked to look before the
committee within 48 hours. The committee will consider whether or not the request is
covered by 69A, and if it is, the designated Officer must submit the recommendation to the
Secretary, Department of IT, who will approve such requests, which will be sent to the
intermediary to block.

The Court was not as readily convinced by the arguments on the constitutionality of Section
69A of the IT Act and the Blocking Rules. The petitioners contended that Sections 69A and
the Blocking Rules neither provided the opportunity for a pre-decisional hearing nor
necessary procedural safeguards such as the requirement of a search warrant and the ability to
make an application to Court to appeal the blocking order.
Section 69A of the IT Act, empowers the Central Government to order that access to certain
websites and computer resources) be blocked in the interest of the defense of the country, its
sovereignty and integrity, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States,
public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence. The details of the
procedural safeguards that had to be followed while blocking access were set out in in more
detail in the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of
Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (Blocking Rule)

They provides an important tool in the arsenal of the Government to deal with undesirable
information which is generated, transmitted, received, stored and hosted in any computer
resource in India. That said power shall be an important power for assisting the Government
of India in meeting various challenges, as time passes.
Seen from another angle, portions of Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards
for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 are violative of article 14 of
the Constitution as they do not, give any reasonable opportunity of being heard to the
website, that is about to be blocked. Further, the Rules are silent as to what remedies need to
be invoked by the owners or administrators or operators of the blocked websites to ensure
that their blocked websites could become unblocked. The Information Technology
(Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009
need to be re-visited so as to make them far more equitable and fair. Also given the fact that
the blocking at the maximum can only be done upto 180 days, there have been instances
reported in the public domain, where number of websites have been blocked for a longer
period of time. There is a need for re-visiting the section, provisions and the rules made
thereunder so as to ensure that principles of natural justice, good conscience and equity are
not subjugated under the grab of exercising of the right and power to give directions for
blocking for public access of any information through any computer resource.

The Court was not as readily convinced by the arguments on the constitutionality of Section
69A of the IT Act and the Blocking Rules. The petitioners contended that Sections 69A and
the Blocking Rules neither provided the opportunity for a pre-decisional hearing nor
necessary procedural safeguards such as the requirement of a search warrant and the ability to
make an application to Court to appeal the blocking order.

Secretary, Ministry of Information &Broadcasting v. Cricket Association of Bengal

The right to freedom of speech and expression under article 19 of the Constitution includes
the right to receive and impart information irrespective of the medium and it has been argued
that Internet is a medium for disseminating information and that when websites are blocked,
user of the Internet would be prejudicially impacted in terms of their ability to access such
information and that such blocking would directly infringe the citizens, freedom of speech
and expression.

A perusal of the said section clearly shows that the term “blocking” or block for access” has
not been defined either under section 69A of the Information Technology Act,2000 or under
section 2 of the Information Technology Act,2000.
As per the Online dictionary Blocking means 1. The action of blocking or obstructing
movement , progress, or activity ,in particular. 2. Obstructing or impeding the actions of an
opponent in a game, esp .(in ball sports) one who does not have control of the ball.
According to the Oxford dictionaries, blocking means the action of blocking or obstructing
someone or something, in particular ; and the grouping or treatment of things (eg shades of
colour ) in blocks .