Supreme Court Issues Notice In PIL Challenging 2009 IT Blocking Rules; Questions Lack Of Notice To Content Originators

The Supreme Court, today, issued notice on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.

The petition argues that before removing content from platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, and Instagram, a notice should be given to the original creator of the content rather than just the intermediary.

The Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masiah issued notice in the PIL. 

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the rule violates principles of natural justice by failing to notify the "originator" of the information before its removal. “We are not disputing the power of the State under Section 69A of the IT Act. However, the issue is whether the person who originally posted the content should be given notice before it is taken down,” Jaising argued.

Justice Gavai questioned the maintainability of the PIL, noting that an aggrieved individual could directly approach the court. "Why is an organization here as petitioner? A person who is identifiable and aggrieved can come forward and challenge it. We can decide based on specific facts," he observed.

The Bench, however, acknowledged the concerns raised and issued notice in the matter.

"Prima facie, both of us feel that if a person is identifiable, notice has to be given," Justice Gavai remarked.

Before concluding, Jaising cited the case of Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, whose account on X was suspended without prior notice, as an example of the issue at hand.

The court will hear the matter further after responses are filed.

The PIL filed through AOR Paras Nath Singh prays for the following:

A. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction or declaration quashing and setting aside Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009; 

B.Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction or declaration, declaring Rule 8 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 null and void or in the alternative to read the word or to mean œand in Rule 8 and ensure that the notice for blocking be issued to the intermediary as well as the person (originator or creator of the content);

C.Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction or declaration striking down and/or reading down Rule 9 of the Blocking Rules, 2009, to mandate the issuance of a notice, opportunity of hearing, and communication of a copy of the interim order to the person (originator or creator of the content) prior to the passing of a final order; 

D.Issue an appropriate writ, order, or direction mandating the Respondents to prescribe a notice format in the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, which discloses all relevant details to enable the noticee to effectively respond to the notice;

E.Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to disclose the number of instances where the power to block information has been utilised under Rule 8 without notice to the originator and/or the intermediary;

F. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to disclose the number of instances where the power to block information has been utilised under Rule 9 without notice to the originator and/or the intermediary;

G. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to disclose the minutes/findings of the Review Committee as referable to Rule 14 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, in assurance with the fundamental rights enshrined under the Constitution of India.

H. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records from the Respondents relating to the proceedings referable to Section 15 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 in order to enable the aggrieved person to take necessary as deemed fit in accordance with law"

Cause Title: Software Freedom Law Centre, India v. Union of India [W.P.(C) No. 161/2025; Diary No. 7547/2025]