Why did the government get ZEE5 to remove ‘Satluj’?, Pg14

Key Highlights:

• The film Satluj, originally titled Punjab ‘95, was removed by ZEE5 from its OTT platform on July 5, two days after its premiere.
• Filmmakers allege the removal was ordered by the government, with reports suggesting examination under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
• The film is based on the life of human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra, who documented alleged extrajudicial killings in Punjab during the 1980s and 1990s.
• No official blocking order has been made public regarding the film's removal.

Detailed Insights:

• Satluj depicts the period of militancy in Punjab and Khalra's work on enforced disappearances and illegal cremations.
• The film faced significant delays and recommended 127 cuts from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for a theatrical release.
• Unlike theatrical releases, content on streaming platforms is regulated under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, not the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
• Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000 empowers the government to block online content on grounds like national sovereignty, security, and public order.
• Legal safeguards for blocking content under Section 69A include a reasoned written order, an opportunity for the publisher to be heard, and review by a designated committee.
• The Supreme Court, in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), upheld Section 69A due to these procedural safeguards.
• Rule 16 of the Blocking Rules allows for confidentiality of blocking orders, which can hinder legal challenges by affected parties.
• The lack of public blocking orders makes it difficult to assess if restrictions meet the constitutional test of proportionality established in cases like K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) and Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020).
• This incident highlights a shift towards post-publication executive control over content on OTT platforms, potentially acting as a parallel censorship mechanism.
• Filmmakers can challenge blocking orders through a writ petition in a High Court, citing violations of Article 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000: Empowers the Central Government to block public access to online content on specific grounds.
• Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021: Regulations governing OTT platforms and digital media content in India.
• Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC): A statutory body under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting responsible for certifying films for public exhibition under the Cinematograph Act, 1952.
• Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): Landmark Supreme Court judgment that struck down Section 66A of the IT Act but upheld Section 69A with procedural safeguards.
• K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017): Supreme Court judgment declaring the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.
• Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020): Supreme Court ruling that freedom of speech and profession over the internet are constitutionally protected rights, subject to proportionate restrictions.
• Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression to all citizens.
• Article 19(1)(g): Guarantees the fundamental right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.