How India blocks websites, explained: Section 69A, court orders and how forged ones got through

On July 21 and September 2, 2026, the Department of Telecommunications told internet providers to block 129 betting websites. The blocks rested on two High Court orders, one in the name of the Rajasthan High Court and one in the name of the Allahabad High Court, which the courts say they never passed, according to reports. The episode has put a question to the test: how are websites blocked in India, and who checks the paperwork?

Which law lets the government block a website?

Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. It allows the Centre to direct any agency or intermediary to block public access to information in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, defence, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign countries or public order, or to prevent incitement to a cognisable offence. Every order must record its reasons in writing. Procedure is set by the 2009 blocking rules.

The same rules also cover blocking ordered by a court. A third route, Section 79(3)(b), is used for takedown notices; it is described below.

How does an ordinary request travel?

Through a chain of named officers, and in a fixed time. A central or state department files a request through its nodal officer, an official it has named for this work. The request goes to a designated officer of at least joint secretary rank, who acknowledges it within 24 hours and puts it before a committee with representatives of the law, home affairs and information and broadcasting ministries and the computer emergency response team, CERT-In.

The platform concerned is sent a notice and given a chance to respond. The committee then recommends a decision to the IT Secretary, and the designated officer passes an approved order to the provider’s agency. For telecom and internet providers it goes through the Department of Telecommunications, which sends the directions to providers. The rules expect this to be completed within seven days.

What are the shortcuts?

An emergency order and a court order. In an emergency the IT Secretary can pass an interim order on the designated officer’s recommendation, and the committee must meet within 48 hours; until a final order, the block stays. Where a court has ordered the block, the designated officer sends the order at once to the IT Secretary and action follows. No committee is convened, because a court has already examined the matter.

The rules also require strict confidentiality about requests and actions, which is why most blocking orders are never published. A review committee under the Cabinet Secretary is meant to meet at least once every two months to examine the orders.

Where did the forged orders get through?

At the court-order step, which trusts that the order is real. According to reports, the first order reached the department by email on July 19 from a person describing himself as an advocate-on-record, and the blocking of 34 sites followed on July 21. The second, dated August 14 in the name of Justice Garima Prashad of the Allahabad High Court, was emailed on August 22, and 95 sites were blocked on September 2. Both courts say they passed no such orders. The reports do not say which route the department followed, so the point here is general: a route that skips the committee depends entirely on the paper being genuine.

The Allahabad High Court filed a complaint on November 6, and Uttar Pradesh police have registered a case of forgery and cheating against unknown persons. They have sent the ministry 24 questions. According to reports, the ministry has begun an inquiry, is considering extra checks before acting on court orders that seek takedowns, and plans to revoke the directions.

What is the Sahyog portal and why does it matter here?

It is a second, faster channel for takedown notices. The Home Ministry runs the Sahyog portal, which sends notices to social media platforms. X told the Karnataka High Court that these notices rest on Section 79(3)(b), under which a platform can lose its legal immunity for third-party content if it does not remove unlawful content after being notified, and that this sidesteps the safeguards of Section 69A. The government has its own view; this piece takes no side on that case, which is separate from the forged orders.

What happens next?

Police are waiting for the ministry’s answers on its content management system and digital logs, and no arrests had been reported when the latest accounts were published. The practical test will be what check the department adds: independent confirmation with the registry of the court concerned before a court-ordered block, or a review of the orders already acted on. Citizens cannot easily see any of this, because blocking orders are kept confidential, and that gap means the forgery surfaced only when a High Court checked its own records and went to the police.