Ban of Chinese Apps in India
Description
Watch Video on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThFfW4KmtBg
Why done?
In the wake
of the face-off with Chinese forces on the India China border in Ladakh, and a
violent clash on June 15 that left 20 Indian soldiers dead, the Indian
government on June 29 has banned 59 apps of Chinese origin, citing data
security and national sovereignty concerns. These include popular ones such as
TikTok, SHARE It, UC Browser, CamScanner, Helo, Weibo, WeChat and Club Factory.
Laws through which Apps have been banned
The Ministry
of Electronics and Information Technology in a press release asserted that it
had received “many complaints from various sources, including several reports
about misuse of some mobile apps available on Android and iOS platforms for
stealing and surreptitiously transmitting users’ data in an unauthorized manner
to servers which have locations outside India”.
The Ministry
said it had decided to block the 59 apps to safeguard the “sovereignty and
integrity of India”, invoking powers under Section 69A of the
Information Technology (IT) Act read
with the relevant provisions of the Information Technology (Procedure
and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009.
|
What is Section 69A of IT Act? Section 69A of the
Information Technology Act, 2000, was introduced by an amendment to
the Act in 2008. It gives the Central government the power to block
public access to any information online — whether on websites or mobile apps. Under Section 69A, if
a website threatens India’s defence, its sovereignty and integrity, friendly
relations with foreign countries and public order, the government can
ban it, after following due procedure. The detailed
procedures to do so are listed under the Information Technology (Procedure
and Safeguards for Blocking Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
Apart from this, a court may also
issue directions for blocking information online. The Department of Telecommunications, too, can issue blocking
orders to internet service providers, to enforce licensing conditions. Blocking
procedure Section 69A mandates that every ministry
in central, state and Union Territory governments must have a
nodal officer, to receive complaints about websites that
host ‘offensive’ content. Once the nodal officer sees merit in the
complaint, he/she then forwards it to a designated officer, who chairs
a committee to examine the grievance. This committee includes representatives from the Ministries of
Law and Justice, Home Affairs, Information and Broadcasting and the Indian
Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In), and give the intermediary a
hearing. Once this procedure is over, the designated officer can
issue directions to block a website, only after the approval of
the secretary of the Department of Information Technology — in ordinary
circumstances. Section 69A also makes space for an event of an
“emergency nature”, during which the designated officer examines the blocking
request, and submits recommendations to the secretary of the
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, who, as an interim measure,
can issue directions to block a website. In such cases, the
aggrieved party does not get a hearing. However, within 48 hours of the interim orders being passed,
the designated officer must bring the blocking request before
the committee. The designated officer will then issue a notice to the
website, asking its representatives to appear before the committee at a
specified date and time. The website is given at least 48 hours to prepare
for the hearing. The recommendation of the committee is conveyed to the IT
secretary who has the final say and may approve the request. The secretary
has the power to disapprove the blocking request and give directions to
unblock the website. Section 69A also has a provision for
a review committee, which meets once in two months to review
directions issued to block a website. It may set aside the blocking order if
the procedures in law have not been followed. The latest order that bans 59 Chinese apps is an interim one,
which has been issued under the emergency clause. The app companies have been
given an opportunity to appear and submit their clarifications before
the committee. Supreme Court verdict related to the Act The Section mandates
strict confidentiality about complaints and action taken. Due to the presence
of this clause, Right to Information (RTI) queries are not applicable to
the law. Moreover, the committees to examine requests and review appeals
comprise entirely members from the executive. In its 2015 judgment
in the landmark Shreya Singhal v/s Union of India case, the Supreme Court of India
upheld the validity of Section 69A and the extant blocking procedures.
The court said that the law was constitutional and a website could be
blocked only on the basis of reasoned order. The Supreme Court
also emphasized that the law has sufficient safeguards under which the
order can only be issued with the committee’s approval to
block a website after it has heard the aggrieved party. As
mentioned in the Rules, in all cases, whether emergency or not, the reasons
to block the website have to be recorded in writing. |
How large is the user base in India for these
banned apps?
• Tik-Tok: Estimates by Sensor Tower, 611 million downloads in India over the app’s lifetime, while estimates of active users vary with the highest pegged at 200 million. The app generated revenue of $924,000 from June 2019 to June 2020 in India through user spending alone.
• Helo:
It caters to regional language
audiences, has over 50 million users in India, as per its own estimates.
• Likee:
It made $776,000 in India through user
spending in the app.
• UC
Browser: Alibaba-owned UC browser has over 430
million active users globally, and 130 million of them are in India.
• CamScanner:
100 million users in India. The app’s
revenue comes through ads and premium subscription plans. As per Sensor Tower,
it made $1.94 million in app spending by users.
The
ban will lead to the
potential loss of advertising revenue for appmakers.
Alternatives:
Chingari, a competitor from India to TikTok, saw its downloads soar from 1 lakh to 1 croreplus on Google Play Store soon after the ban on Chinese apps was announced.
For the alternatives,
government has launched the Atmanirbhar Bharat App Innovation Challenge
The innovation challenge aims at encouraging tech &
startup communities to create world-class Made in India Apps. Under the
challenge, innovators are invited to develop apps in eight categories. • Social
Networking • Office
Productivity & Work from Home • E-Learning • Health
& Wellness • Entertainment • News • Business
including Fintech and Agritech • Games Challenge has been
launched by the Ministry of Electronics & IT and Atal Innovation
Mission-Niti Aayog. |
What has China’s response been to the ban?
China
has said that it suspects India’s actions could be in violation of the World
Trade Organization (WTO) rules. In a statement, the Chinese Embassy in New
Delhi said, “India’s measure selectively and discriminatorily aims at certain
Chinese apps on ambiguous and far-fetched grounds, runs against fair and
transparent procedure requirements, abuses national security exceptions, and
[is suspected] of violating the WTO rules. It also goes against the general
trend of international trade and ecommerce, and is not conducive to consumer
interests and the market competition in India. The ban will not only impact a
large number of users in India, but it will also adversely hit the employment
of local Indian professionals working in companies that run these apps.” But
the banning of Apps does not violate of WTO rules.
1.
There is no bilateral agreement between India and China with
regard to smart phone apps. Chinese companies launched their apps in India not
because the two countries signed an agreement but because India is an otherwise
free market with access to all.
2. Rules of WTO favour Indian
position. According
to WHO laws, a country is allowed to act against companies or products for
being threat to its sovereignty and national security interest. This is exactly
what the government has said while invoking the IT Act against these apps.
Conclusion
If we have to prepare for this challenge, India will have to prepare a long term strategy with tangible deadlines which allow us to expand or build our domestic capabilities to a level where we can take even tougher decisions and if the present trends continue and if Chinese are not willing to engage with India on terms that India finds conducive then clearly more costs in short terms will come, but it will make us prepared for the long term crisis.
