Arbitrary use of power

January 5, 2015

The Union government recently blocked 32 websites, including globally popular ones such as Vimeo, GitHub, Dailymotion and archive.org that support data-archiving, video-sharing and software development, evoking serious questions and criticism. The action was sought to be justified on the grounds that these websites were being used for “Jihadi Propaganda” by “Anti-National groups” encouraging Indian youth to join organisations such as Islamic State (IS). Such a justification may in principle seem reasonable, yet it does not instil confidence in citizens given the weak track record of Internet regulation and a deficient legal framework coupled with the arbitrary use of state power. 

Following the arrest of Bengaluru-based Mehdi Biswas, suspected of operating a pro-IS Twitter account, the government officially banned IS in India only last month. A 2012 United Nations report titled “The Use of the Internet for Terrorist Purposes”, warns of terror groups using the Internet for their “propaganda”. For instance, al-Qaeda uses the Internet to announce its latest attacks and strategic alliances, promote its interests and so on. Robert Hannigan, from the Government Communications Headquarters in the U.K., spoke in an interview about how IS uses popular hashtags to boost its viewership, sending “thousands of tweets a day without triggering spam controls”. Undoubtedly, terrorists use technology with some level of sophistication.

The scepticism is with regard to implementation rather than the principle behind the action. First, the government invoked Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and relevant “Blocking Rules” were framed under it to take down the sites. These provisions, the constitutionality of which is under challenge in the Supreme Court, are riddled with vagueness and are open to arbitrary use. Second, reasonable restriction on free speech under Article 19(2) of the Constitution is to be interpreted to include only cases where there is a direct relation between the offending speech and public disorder or national security. 

But in blocking URLs, the government speaks of not just content that poses a direct threat to public order and security, but also the spread of “propaganda” — which is a perilously vague term with the potential to impinge on fundamental rights. Third, blocking websites is rarely an effective method to curb terror activities. Competent users can circumvent with ease such restrictions through Proxies and Virtual Private Networks. Instead of blocking websites outright, a more coordinated public-private dialogue should be the way ahead. Giving national security precedence over all else, including fundamental rights, is an often-exploited narrative that needs to be closely scrutinised, without reducing this scrutiny to a “with us-or-against us” logic.