Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC) has filed a public interest litigation petition (PIL) challenging certain provisions of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. On March 3, 2025, a bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and A G Masih issued a notice to the Union of India and Meity.
SFLC challenges the constitutional validity of Rule 16 of the Blocking Rules. The petition also seeks to read down or strike down Rules 8 and 9, arguing that these provisions are ultra vires Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression), and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Constitution of India. The primary contention is that these rules violate principles of natural justice by not mandating a hearing, provision of reasons, or notice to the content originator before blocking online content. Rule 16 imposes confidentiality on all related requests, complaints, and actions, further denying transparency and accountability.
Subsequently, SC tagged writ petitions filed by Sushant Singh and Sanjay Sharma with the SFLC matter.
Next Date: September 12, 2025 (Tentative)
Writ Petition (C) No. 161 of 2025:
Petitioner
-
- Software Freedom Law Centre
- Mamta Verma
Respondents
-
- Union of India
- Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY)
Tagged Matters:
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; AND.”
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 ÃÂand 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); AND
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; AND
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
Tagged Matter (Sanjay Sharma):
c) 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;
d) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction or declaration, declaring the said rule null and void and/or reading the word ‘shall’ to be a compulsory requirement and reading down Rule 8 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 to ensure a conjunctive reading of the term “or” as “and”, and ensure that the notice for blocking be issued to the intermediary as well as the person (originator or creator of the content);
e) 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;”
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Justice B R Gavai | Justice A G Masih |