UPSC Prelims Practice Questions — HC to hear plea against blocking of CJP’s X handle
Q1. Under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, blocking requests forwarded by various ministries and agencies are examined and the resulting directions are issued by the Designated Officer functioning under which one of the following?
- A. Ministry of Home Affairs
- B. Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology
- C. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
- D. Ministry of Communications
Q2. The statutory power of the Central Government to issue directions for blocking public access to any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource is conferred by which one of the following sections of the Information Technology Act, 2000?
- A. Section 66A
- B. Section 69
- C. Section 69A
- D. Section 79
Q3. Under the Information Technology (Blocking) Rules, 2009, the committee that examines requests for blocking access to information and gives the intermediary/publisher an opportunity to be heard is chaired by which one of the following?
- A. The Nodal Officer of the requesting organisation
- B. The Designated Officer
- C. The Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology
- D. A Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Home Affairs
Q4. In Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), which one of the following provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional?
- A. Section 66A
- B. Section 69A
- C. Section 79
- D. Section 66
Q5. With reference to the outcome of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), consider the following statements:
1. Section 66A was struck down as unconstitutional.
2. Section 69A, along with the Blocking Rules, was upheld as constitutionally valid.
3. Section 79 was read down so that 'actual knowledge' means a court order or a government notification.
4. Section 66A was held to be saved as a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2).
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?
- Section 66A was struck down as unconstitutional.
- Section 69A, along with the Blocking Rules, was upheld as constitutionally valid.
- Section 79 was read down so that 'actual knowledge' means a court order or a government notification.
- Section 66A was held to be saved as a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2).
- A. 4 only
- B. 1 and 4
- C. 2 and 3
- D. 3 only
Q6. The 'Sahyog' portal — a centralised system for routing content-takedown notices to intermediaries, whose legality was upheld by the Karnataka High Court in 2025 — was developed and is operated by which one of the following?
- A. Ministry of Home Affairs, as the sole nodal authority for all takedowns
- B. Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology
- C. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
- D. National Informatics Centre
Q7. With reference to the case concerning the blocking of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) X handle, consider the following statements:
1. The plea against the blocking was decided by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court.
2. The original CJP handle was withheld citing potential confusion among students and parents ahead of a NEET re-test.
3. The blocking order was revoked after the Centre stated it no longer objected to restoring access.
4. The Karnataka High Court heard the plea and permanently upheld the blocking.
Which of the statements given above is/are correctly identified?
- The plea against the blocking was decided by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court.
- The original CJP handle was withheld citing potential confusion among students and parents ahead of a NEET re-test.
- The blocking order was revoked after the Centre stated it no longer objected to restoring access.
- The Karnataka High Court heard the plea and permanently upheld the blocking.
- A. 1, 2 and 3
- B. 1 and 4
- C. 2, 3 and 4
- D. 1 and 3 only
Q8. With reference to the CJP X handle blocking case, consider the following statements:
1. The handle was withheld invoking Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
2. The Solicitor General of India represented the Union government in the matter.
3. The matter was heard by the Delhi High Court.
4. The Delhi High Court directed the Union government to pay monetary compensation to the party.
Which of the statements given above is/are NOT correct?
- The handle was withheld invoking Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
- The Solicitor General of India represented the Union government in the matter.
- The matter was heard by the Delhi High Court.
- The Delhi High Court directed the Union government to pay monetary compensation to the party.
- A. 4 only
- B. 1 and 4
- C. 3 only
- D. 2 and 4
Q9. Under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, reasonable restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) can validly be imposed only through which one of the following?
- A. An executive notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs
- B. A law made by the State (legislature)
- C. An administrative order of the Union Council of Ministers
- D. A directive issued by the concerned sectoral regulator
Q10. The power to review the legality of an executive content-blocking order by issuing writs such as certiorari and mandamus, for the enforcement of fundamental rights and 'for any other purpose', is exercised under Article 226 by which one of the following?
- A. The Supreme Court alone
- B. The High Courts
- C. District and Sessions Courts
- D. The Central Administrative Tribunal