The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notices to the Office of the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi and the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) over a legal challenge questioning the empowerment of Delhi Police to issue takedown notices for online content under the Information Technology Rules, 2021.
The order was passed by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC)—a non-profit dedicated to digital rights and internet freedom. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for September.
At the heart of the petition is a notification issued by the LG of Delhi, which designated the Delhi Police as the Nodal Agency for issuing takedown orders under the IT Rules, 2021. SFLC has argued that this delegation of power is unconstitutional and ultra vires, as it is not backed by the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000, or the IT Rules framed thereunder.
Legal Argument: Power to Block Content Lies Only with Central Government
The petition, argued by Advocate Talha Abdul Rahman, states that the authority to block or remove online content lies exclusively with the Central Government, as specified under Section 69A of the IT Act, read with the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 (commonly known as the Blocking Rules).
SFLC contended that the LG’s notification wrongly empowers a law enforcement agency to perform a function meant for the Union Government. “The impugned notification, by granting these powers to the police, oversteps constitutional and statutory boundaries,” the plea asserts.
By permitting the police to unilaterally issue takedown notices, the notification effectively enables executive censorship without judicial or independent oversight, the petition states. Such unchecked authority poses a serious threat to free speech and the democratic exchange of ideas online, according to SFLC’s legal team, which includes advocates Faizan Ahmed, Musheer Zaidi, Mishi Choudhary, Prasanth Sugathan, Arjun Adrian D’Souza, and Syed Mohammad Haroon.
ALSO READ: FCRF Launches Campus Ambassador Program to Empower India’s Next-Gen Cyber Defenders
Constitutional Implications: A Battle Over Free Speech and Digital Governance
The petition raises significant constitutional questions about the balance of power between state and central agencies in regulating online content. By vesting content control in the hands of local police, SFLC argues, the notification bypasses safeguards established under national legislation, leading to a potential chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech.
The PIL cautions that this move could open the floodgates for arbitrary censorship, especially in politically sensitive matters. It calls for a reassertion of the framework under which only the Central Government, through a structured process, may initiate blocking orders—typically involving examination by a designated committee and recommendation by senior officers.
The outcome of this case may have far-reaching implications for digital rights, free speech, and internet regulation in India, particularly in the context of increasing government scrutiny of online platforms.
A Crucial Test for Digital Freedoms and Rule of Law
As the court deliberates on the legality of the LG’s notification, the case stands as a critical test of constitutional propriety, administrative boundaries, and individual freedoms in the digital age. It could set a precedent in how far state-level authorities can go in regulating online content and what checks and balances must exist to prevent misuse of power.
In an era of growing internet dependence and government oversight, the judgment in this case is expected to shape future policy on digital governance and content regulation in India.