Centre asks social media platforms to take down Manipur video under Section 69 (A) of IT Act, 2000. What is it?

Manipur is still on fire more than two months later. More than 140 people have died and tens of thousands have been displaced as a result of the ethnic conflicts between the Meitei and Kuki-Zomi tribes. The devastating incident in which two women from the Kuki-Zomi group were paraded naked by a crowd of men and sexually abused in the northeastern state served as fuel for even more violence. The two women’s shocking footage surfaced online, forcing the Centre and the army to intervene. The central government has asked that Twitter and other social media sites remove the video. According to the government’s demand, tweets from several accounts that had posted the video have been withheld in India. An upper-level government official told Indian Express, “Some links have been shared with social media companies to take down the video as it could further disrupt the law and order situation in the state.” The action is being taken at the same time as the Information Technology Act of 2000’s Section 69(A) gives the Centre the authority to require social media sites to remove content. But what exactly is it? Let’s take a look. Also read: Manipur women horror: How rape and sexual violence are used as a weapon in conflict Section 69 (A) of the IT Act According to The Print, Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000, allows the central government to block public access to an intermediary “in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence relating to above.” “Telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, web hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online auction sites, online marketplaces, cyber cafes, etc.” are all included in the definition of an intermediary under Section 2(w) of the IT Act. Although Section 69 (A) gives the government the authority to do so, the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 outline the specific measures that must be followed. Apar Gupta, lawyer and executive director of the NGO Internet Freedom Foundation, told The Print, “Any request made for blocking by the government is sent to an examining committee, which then issues these directions." Gurshabad Grover, a senior researcher at the Centre for Internet and Society, stressed that in an emergency, such directives would be approved by the committee’s chairperson before being submitted to the committee. [caption id=“attachment_12895982” align=“alignnone” width=“640”] Tribal Kuki community members hold placards during a protest in Churachandpur district, in the northeastern Indian state of Manipur. PTI[/caption] Rule 9 of the IT blocking rules permit a review committee to send “recommendations regarding the case, including whether it is justifiable to block the accounts” in order to uphold the blocking of an account permanently, even though there is no opportunity for the stakeholder to respond prior to the action being taken in an emergency situation. However, Rule 16 of the IT Blocking Rules, which mandates that requests and complaints for blocking accounts must remain private, has received the most criticism for being “unconstitutional” over the years. Also read: What video of women being paraded naked tells us about violence in Manipur The landmark judgment In a historic decision from 2015, the Supreme Court invalidated Section 66 (A) of the IT Act, 2000, which imposed penalties for delivering harmful messages via communication services, among other things. Section 69 (A) of the IT Rules 2009 had also been contested in the plea, but the top court declared it to be “constitutionally void.” “It will be noticed that Section 69A unlike Section 66A is a narrowly drawn provision and had sufficient procedural safeguards. First and foremost, blocking can only be resorted to where the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary to do so. Secondly, such necessity is relatable only to some of the subjects set out in Article 19(2). Thirdly, reasons have to be recorded in writing in such blocking order so that they may be assailed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution,” the Court noted, according to Indian Express. Also read: Manipur Horror: Did the police fail to act on time in the tragedy? Centre issues non-compliance order After the video was extensively circulated on the social media site, Twitter received a non-compliance order from the Centre on Wednesday night, according to NDTV. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology issued a warning to social media platforms the next day on compliance with the new information and technology regulations, the report said. Twitter was cautioned by the Centre not to distribute any films that would disrupt public order. The 2021 amendment to the IT Rules mandates that social media intermediaries caution users not to post material that might be against the law or damaging to others. “Paedophilic, pornographic, defamatory, and obscene” content is included here, according to Scroll.in. Additionally, the National Commission for Women issued a directive asking that Twitter take down the video. The female body claimed that the video compromises the complainant’s identity. Manipur shocker The incident allegedly took place more than two months ago, when the violence first started in Manipur. The two women survivors who are in their 20s and 40s hail from the hill district of Kangpokpi, which is dominated by the Kuki-Zomi community. The two women were shown in the Twitter video being paraded down a road by a group of men as others were seen molesting them as they were being pulled into a field. The assault happened on 4 May in the Thoubal district, and on 18 May in the Kangpokpi district, a zero FIR was filed in the case. The FIR included accusations of murder, gang rape, and kidnapping against unidentified criminals. The women said in the complaint that after their community was attacked, they took refuge in a neighbouring forest. Police had saved them and were taking them to a police station when the mob took them away. However, it wasn’t until the video became viral that the first arrest was made. On Friday morning, Manipur chief minister N Biren Singh tweeted the news of the arrest and promised that his administration will see to it that all of the perpetrators faced harsh punishment, maybe including the death penalty.

My hearts go out to the two women who were subjected to a deeply disrespectful and inhumane act, as shown in the distressing video that surfaced yesterday. After taking a Suo-moto cognisance of the incident immediately after the video surfaced, the Manipur Police swung to action…

— N. Biren Singh (@NBirenSingh) July 20, 2023

Prime Minister Narendra Modi responded angrily to the assault, calling it “shameful for any civilisation” and said it caused him “pain and anger” in his heart. Even the Supreme Court intervened, describing the footage as “deeply disturbing”. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud warned that the Supreme Court will take up the case on July 28 if the government didn’t take action. “It is time that the government steps and takes action. This is unacceptable,” it said. With inputs from agencies