One more addition to the list of banned articles by the Government: porn sites. Their justification: in a move to prevent children from accessing them.
However, the Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad is of the opinion that the “context of Indian culture and moral obligation towards society” must be kept in mind while contemplating a ban on porn websites.
They did it even after the Supreme Court’s observation this year that it cannot stop an adult from exercising his fundamental right to personal liberty to watch porn within the privacy of his room.
What about Section 69A read with 2009 Rules for blocking? Is the Government claiming that it has followed each procedural safeguard provided therein? This move is really hilarious.
The Government in its notification dated 31.7.2015 specifically indicates that the contents hosted on the list of websites to be blocked are related to morality and decency under Art.19(2). However, it fails to satisfy the ingredients of Section 69A of the IT Act specifically dealing with blocking of the websites. The Supreme Court in its recent judgement Shreya Singhal v. UOI, popularly known as S.66A case, clarified the position on Section 69A at para 109:
“It will be noticed that Section 69A unlike Section 66A is a narrowly drawn provision with several safeguards. First and foremost, blocking can only be resorted to where the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do. 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.”
It is to be noted here that morality and decency are not one of the several subjects under Sec.69A on the basis of which the Government has issued the above notification. Further, the Court went on to holding Sec.69A and the 2009 Rules constitutionally valid. The issuance of such notification is legally invalid.
It seems like this Government has no clue about the concept of personal liberty and privacy. They have done it with issuing of Aadhar cards despite stern orders from the Supreme Court asking them not to make it mandatory and now this new nuisance.
Why cannot we introduce sex education at school level? I wish this Government had this on its agenda.
However, It is easier said than done. The government may have reversed the controversial order banning hundreds of websites but some of the pornographic websites in the government’s ban list had a contingency plan in place. Banning technology is not that easy and it would likely to be bypassed by the tech savvy public.
Moreover, pornography is not just a moral issue. It is a social issue as it enables pleasure. (‘In Defence of Good Porn’, By Dhamini Ratnam, August 8, Live Mint) Banning pleasure would have greater ramification in a social democratic republic.
Note: Excerpts are from my facebook post two days ago with additional updates and inputs.
vikramadityaj 