Question

Sunil is a high-ranking officer of the Union government. While scrolling through his timeline on a social media platform, he notices some posts by Sachin, a private businessman, which he finds objectionable. He sends an order to UnReal, the company that owns that social media platform, that the posts must be blocked, as they may bring disrepute to India. UnReal claims that Sunil has not provided a clear, detailed reason for blocking the posts, and so, the order is not valid. Is UnReal right?

• A. No, the blocking order is valid since Sunil found the posts objectionable.
• B. No, the blocking order is valid since Sunil had provided reasons for blocking the post.
• C. Yes, Sunil’s reasons are vague, and he should have provided more detail.
• D. Yes, such an order is violative of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.
• A. Yes, since it did not provide any reasons that could be communicated to the users of the social media platform.
• B. No, since Sunil had provided reasons to UnReal for ordering that the post be blocked.
• C. Yes, since Sunil did not have the authority to issue blocking orders so frequently.
• D. No, since the post divulged confidential government information.
• A. Yes, since making such threats amounts to intimidation.
• B. No, since Sunil had issued blocking orders in the past as well, and UnReal should have complied with the orders without questioning them.
• C. Yes, since Sunil did not have the power to cancel UnReal’s safe harbour immunity.
• D. No, since the IT Act does not forbid Sunil from doing so.
• A. Yes, since Sunil was clearly targeting Sachin, and was misusing his powers to silence him.
• B. No, since UnReal had shared the reasons for the blocking order with Sachin.
• C. Yes, since Section 69A of the IT Act only permits blocking information, or a particular post, but not a whole account.
• D. No, since his posts were seen as increasingly objectionable by the government.
• A. The blocking order was valid, but UnReal’s actions were inappropriate.
• B. UnReal’s actions were valid, but the blocking order was invalid.
• C. UnReal’s actions were valid, but Sachin’s actions were invalid.
• D. Sachin’s actions were valid, but the blocking order was invalid.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is C

Step 1 (Requirement for valid blocking orders).
For blocking orders to be valid, the Union government must provide clear reasons, which can be communicated to the users of the social media platform. This ensures transparency and allows users to challenge any actions they believe are unjustified.
Step 2 (Application to Sunil’s order).
Sunil’s order lacks sufficient detail. Simply stating that the posts might bring disrepute to India is not a detailed reason that can be communicated effectively to users. Without a clear explanation, the order could be challenged as vague.
Step 3 (Conclusion).
UnReal’s claim is correct because the order lacks the necessary detail for it to be considered valid under the law.
\[ \boxed{\text{Yes, Sunil’s reasons are vague, and he should have provided more detail. (Option C)}} \]

Answer 2

Step 1 (Requirement for valid blocking orders).
As per the IT Act, blocking orders must include reasons that can be communicated to users, to maintain transparency. Orders without clear, communicable reasons violate the principles of freedom of expression.
Step 2 (Application to Sunil’s order).
Though the post relates to sensitive government information, the order does not provide a detailed reason that can be explained to users of the platform. This makes the order invalid.
Step 3 (Conclusion).
UnReal’s claim is correct, as the order does not comply with the legal requirement for providing clear reasons that can be communicated to users.
\[ \boxed{\text{Yes, since it did not provide any reasons that could be communicated to the users of the social media platform. (Option A)}} \]

Answer 3

Step 1 (Review the legal consequences).
Sunil’s statement, threatening criminal proceedings and the cancellation of UnReal’s safe harbour immunity, amounts to intimidation. Under the law, it is illegal for an official to use such threats to force compliance with orders.
Step 2 (Application to Sunil’s letter).
Sunil’s letter implies coercion, and using intimidation tactics in an official capacity violates legal standards of conduct.
Step 3 (Conclusion).
UnReal is correct, as Sunil’s letter constitutes intimidation, which is not permissible under the law.
\[ \boxed{\text{Yes, since making such threats amounts to intimidation. (Option A)}} \]

Answer 4

Step 1 (Review of Section 69A of the IT Act).
Section 69A of the Information Technology Act allows the government to block specific information or content, such as a post or tweet, but not an entire account. Blocking an entire account would violate the guidelines set by the IT Act.
Step 2 (Consideration of Sunil’s orders).
While Sunil may have legitimate reasons for requesting the blocking of Sachin’s posts, blocking the entire account is beyond the scope of Section 69A. Therefore, the blocking order is invalid.
Step 3 (Conclusion).
Sachin’s claim is valid, as the blocking of his whole account violates the law.
\[ \boxed{\text{Yes, since Section 69A of the IT Act only permits blocking information, or a particular post, but not a whole account. (Option C)}} \]

Answer 5

Step 1 (Review of the blocking order).
Sunil’s blocking order was issued according to the guidelines of the IT Act and appears to be valid, as it provides the necessary reasons for blocking specific posts.
Step 2 (UnReal’s actions).
However, UnReal’s decision to override the reasons set out in the blocking order and provide different reasons is inappropriate. They are required to comply with the order issued by Sunil, not to alter or provide alternative reasons.
Step 3 (Conclusion).
While the blocking order was valid, UnReal should have complied with it as per the government’s instructions.
\[ \boxed{\text{The blocking order was valid, but UnReal’s actions were inappropriate. (Option A)}} \]