Home / Volume 9, Issue 2 / Remedies and Governance under Sections 69A and 79:… Open access · CC BY-NC 4.0
Research Paper Volume 9 Issue 2 4288 - 4302 May 11, 2026

Remedies and Governance under Sections 69A and 79: Judicial Review, Executive Power, and Rule-Making Overreach in India

Lead author · Corresponding
Anshit Saxena
Student at Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India
Co-author
Ambar Srivastava
Assistant Professor at Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India
View PDF Full text DOIhttps://doij.org/10.10000/IJLMH.1112037
Abstract

The regulation of online speech in India is increasingly blurring the lines between legal resolution of statutory obstructions and which platforms are legally compelled to comply. This Article addresses the blurring line with a doctrinal analysis of the Information Technology Act of 2000 and its Sections 69A and 79, the 2009 Blocking Rules, the 2021 Information Technology Guidelines and Ethics Rules, and the primary judicial interpretations of each. The principal problem is whether the Indian legal system, in keeping with the Constitution, still retains a working distinction between executive blocking under Section 69A and the frameworks of Section 79, intermediary conditionality, or has legislating somehow obfuscated the distinction. The Article concludes that the Shreya Singhal and Others v. the Union of India judgement in itself, is constitutionally ailing and is a response to Section 69A in terms of a compliance tacked and tacked restrictive Section 79 judicialize and legislating. It has legislating tacked the absence of democracy to Section 79, which in combination, has resulted in non-duplicating equivalents to Section 69A. The Article concludes that, and has positive responses to the Shreya Singhal, the positive responses to the Shreya Singhal, the positive responses to India Shreya Singhal v. the Union of India, Shreya Singhal, Shreya Singhal, and Shreya Singhal and Others of the absence of democracy to Section 79, which in combination, has to a large extent positive responses to Section 79, Section 79, and the absence of democracy to Section 79, which in combination, has to a large extent positive responses to democracy, Shreya Singhal, and Others of the absence of democracy to Section 79, which in combination, has to a large extent positive responses to Section 69A. The Shreya Singhal, and has to a large extent positive responses to Section 79, positive responses to the Shreya Singhal, and Others v. the Singhal, Shreya Singhal and Others of the absence of democracy to Section 69A. The Shreya Singhal and Others, and Others, of the absence of democracy to Section 69A.

Type
Research Paper
Information
International Journal of Law Management and Humanities, Volume 9, Issue 2, Page 4288 - 4302
DOI: https://doij.org/10.10000/IJLMH.1112037
Creative Commons
CC BY-NC 4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits remixing, adapting, and building upon the work for non-commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © IJLMH 2026
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this manuscript are those of the author(s) alone and do not reflect the views, policies, or position of the Journal.

Export citation


        
📢 Call for Papers — Volume IX Issue III now open  ·  Impact Factor 7.010  ·  Indexed in HeinOnline, Manupatra & Google Scholar + 1000+ Libraries  ·  Free DOI Submit Now →
Chat with us