CURRENT AFFAIRS | 27 APRIL 2026
CLAT GK + CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (FREE SPEECH & TECH REGULATION)
Content-blocking orders issued by India’s Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology (MeitY) have doubled to about 24,000 in the past financial year, an Indian Express investigation reports. Over half of these orders targeted X (formerly Twitter); roughly 25% hit Facebook and Instagram and around 5% YouTube — with a sharp rise in “interim” emergency blocks driven by AI-generated deepfakes of politicians, judges and film stars.
Each of those orders flows from a single statutory tap: Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read with the cumbersomely-named “Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009”. For CLAT 2027 aspirants, this story is a one-stop revision of free-speech jurisprudence — Article 19, Shreya Singhal, Anuradha Bhasin, the proportionality test, and the 2009 Blocking Rules.
Constitutional & Legal Framework
- Article 19(1)(a) — guarantees the freedom of speech and expression to all citizens.
- Article 19(2) — permits “reasonable restrictions” on 8 enumerated grounds: sovereignty & integrity of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency, morality, contempt of court, defamation, and incitement to an offence.
- Section 69A, IT Act 2000 — empowers the Central Government to direct any agency or intermediary to block public access to any information on five grounds (which closely track 19(2)).
- Blocking Rules, 2009 — Rule 7 designates a Joint-Secretary level officer in MeitY as the Designated Officer; the Committee includes representatives from MHA, MEA, MoD, MoLJ, MIB and CERT-In; final approval rests with the Secretary, MeitY.
- Rule 9 — emergency blocking by the Designated Officer pre-Committee, but must be ratified within 48 hours.
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) — struck down Section 66A as violative of 19(1)(a); UPHELD Section 69A on the strength of the Blocking Rules’ procedural safeguards (notice, Committee review, recorded reasons).
- Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) — internet shutdown orders must be published, time-bound, proportionate; indefinite shutdowns are impermissible.
- Faheema Shirin v. State of Kerala (2019) — right to access internet read into Articles 21 and 21A.
Why This Matters for CLAT 2027
Free-speech questions are CLAT’s bread and butter — and the deepfake-and-blocking story sits at the intersection of three favourite themes: (i) Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) — match the IT Act ground to the constitutional ground; (ii) the proportionality test from Puttaswamy and Anuradha Bhasin — legitimate aim, suitability, necessity (least restrictive means), balancing; and (iii) the procedural-safeguards reasoning in Shreya Singhal that saved Section 69A. Expect a passage describing a deepfake video of a politician being blocked overnight under Rule 9, asking whether the order satisfies proportionality and natural justice. The 24,000-order data point makes a perfect critical-reasoning trigger: does volume itself defeat the “reasonable restriction” test?
Key Facts at a Glance
| Element | Detail |
|---|---|
| FY 2025-26 blocking orders | ~24,000 (up ~2x year-on-year) |
| Top platform targeted | X (over 50% of orders) |
| Statutory basis | Section 69A, IT Act 2000 + Blocking Rules 2009 |
| Approving authority | Secretary, MeitY (on Committee recommendation) |
| Emergency window | Rule 9 — 48-hour ratification by Committee |
| Leading constitutional case | Shreya Singhal v. UoI, (2015) 5 SCC 1 |
Mnemonic
“SD-PFS” — the five Section 69A grounds: Sovereignty/Integrity, Defence, Public order, Friendly states, Security of State (plus incitement to a cognizable offence relating to these).
“S-A-F” — the three landmark cases: Shreya Singhal (66A struck, 69A saved), Anuradha Bhasin (internet shutdown proportionality), Faheema Shirin (internet access = Article 21).
Implications & The Road Ahead
The doubling of blocking orders raises a structural question: when emergency Rule-9 orders become the norm rather than the exception, the procedural safeguards that Shreya Singhal relied upon to save Section 69A start to wear thin. Petitioners are already invoking Anuradha Bhasin‘s requirement that orders be published — most 69A blocks remain confidential under Rule 16. The Digital India Act, 2026 (in draft) is expected to overhaul the IT Act framework; whether it tightens proportionality safeguards or simply codifies wider executive discretion will be the next big constitutional flashpoint.
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
