National security versus Free Speech

Union government has often resorted to blocking of websites to stop the growth of jihadist propaganda by anti-national groups. The crackdown has failed to boost the confidence of citizens in the government machinery. This is basically because of poorly regulated internet which is backed by a deficient legal framework to support it. Although terror groups have used internet as a source to spread their propaganda but levying arbitrary blanked bans points to unpreparedness of the government machinery. It is not the intention but the mode of implementation which has given rise to scepticism.

• The invoking of Section 69 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and also other blocking rules which were prepared by the government to deal with such situations were highly vague and open.
• A restriction of Article 19 (2) on free speech should include cases where a direct link is established between public speech and public disorder or national security. However, the government action to block URLs which spread negative propaganda and thus jeopardise national security is unreasonable as the word ‘propaganda’ is vague in itself to the extent that a fundamental right is impinged.
• Also, blocking of websites is seen to be highly ineffective approach to curb terror as the users usually resort to proxy servers or Virtual Private Networks to go around the restrictions.

The government should thus focus on framing stringent and foolproof regulation on such issues rather than taking temporary and uncertain measures which only lead to public frustration against the ruling regime.