Here's the thing: Block a term like "sex determination", you'll also likely block info of where to report its occurrence. #collateraldamage— Nandita Saikia (@nsaikia) February 16, 2017
The IT Act, 2011 Rules do not generally require pro-active due diligence by intermediaries to block content — just response to complaints.— Nandita Saikia (@nsaikia) February 16, 2017
At what point does blocking by key word stop? Would it eg extend to corporate IP rights? Only where there's public policy imperative? Basis?— Nandita Saikia (@nsaikia) February 16, 2017
In a decision dated January 18, 2017, but issued with corrections on February 22, 2017, by the Delhi High Court, it was explicitly stated that the autoblock doctrine/principle is limited in its application to the Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act. The relevant text from the decision (i.e. Kent RO Systems Ltd. & Anr. v. Mr. Amit Kotak & Ors.; CS (Comm) 1655 of 2016) reads as follows: "Post Script: Before this order has been corrected and released, Supreme Court has vide Order dated 16th February, 2017 in WP(Civil) No.341/2008 titled Sabu Mathew George Vs. Union of India referred to the principle/doctrine of “auto block” and constitution by Google India, Microsoft Corporation (I) Pvt. Ltd. and Yahoo India of an “In House Expert Body” to detect violation on their respective platforms of the provisions of The Preconception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PNDT Act), as the counsel for the plaintiffs herein has been contending, in the context of enforcement of the PNDT Act, 1994. However that was under Section 22 of PNDT Act and not under the IT Act or Rules."
April 2017: In its order dated April 13, 2017, in the PIL before it (i.e. WP (Civil) 341/2008) in which the doctrine of auto-block was first introduced, the Supreme Court appeared to have reconsidered the doctrine. It stated: "It is further accepted by them [the respondents, i.e., intermediary search engine providers] that if the Nodal Officer of the Union of India communicates to any of the respondents with regard to any offensive material that contravenes Section 22 [of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994], they will block it." The Court then had the matter listed on 5.9.2017 'so that the outcome of this acceptance will be plain as day'.