The websites blocking in India is more or less a judicial act where the courts direct the department of electronics and information technology (DeitY) to block the website(s) ordered to be blocked. In many cases the blocking of websites in India reflects the ignorance of judiciary to effectively deal with technology issues. This is the reason that ignorant judicial blocking of website in India is also common.
Recently the Supreme Court of India sought response from Central Government over blocking of porn websites in India. Indian Internet service providers (ISPs) have even clarified that they cannot block porn websites in India unilaterally and voluntarily.
There is no doubt that Indian Government can and should block offending websites on its own or the moment information about the same has been brought to its knowledge by third parties or general public. However, this is not happening in India as on date.
Meanwhile another judicial blocking is in pipeline. It has been reported that a Tamil website, ‘Savukku’, which means whip, has been ordered to be blocked by Madras High Court. The Court passed the order as it deemed the website to be offensive and tarnishing the reputation of several judges, IAS/IPS officers, advocates and others. The Court then directed the group coordinator (joint secretary), cyber law division, DeitY to block the entire website with immediate effect upon receipt of the order.
It seems the ownership of the website and hosting was obtained by an anonymous user and the authorship attribution is becoming a headache for the police. Holding service providers and those managing the websites responsible for the contents uploaded, Justice Selvam said: “Website service providers and all other persons providing internet service necessarily would require the persons in charge of websites to inform true particulars as regards their names and addresses. Clearly, in this case, the names and addresses stand wrongly informed.” Special teams had been formed to ascertain the location of the accused persons.
The court also made it clear that every objectionable post uploaded in the website would give cause for people to initiate appropriate proceedings against it. “Each and every instance of objectionable and vituperative, malignant post in the website would give cause for separate cases and actions.”