Ban on Chinese apps and legal aspects behind banning the apps

The Government of India has banned 59 Chinese mobile applications, including top social media
platforms such as TikTok, We Chat and Helo, to counter the threat posed by these applications to
the country’s “sovereignty and security”. The government of India had issued an interim order
for the blocking of 59 Apps, including tik tok. Tik tok continues to comply with all data privacy
and security requirements under Indian law and has not shared any information of the users in
India with any foreign government, including the Chinese government.1
Tik tok, for instances, has seen about 611 million downloads in India over the app’s lifetime ,
while estimates of active users vary with the highest pegged at 200million.The Alibaba-owned
UC Browser second in India market share at 10.19%, after Google Chrome(78.2%).
How users and app providers will be affected?
Installed apps may continue to exist on mobile devices. But now that the latest versions of the
apps have been removed from Google’s play store and Apple’s App store, users will not be able
to access updated versions in future. If a notice goes out to internet services providers asking that
data flow from these apps be halted, that could impact the functioning of existing, installed
apps.The potential loss of advertising revenue impacts app-makers. Tik Tok parent Byte dance
Ltd. Recorded a doubling of global revenue to $17billion in 2019, over the previous year, with
$3billion in profit. Its business may have yielded only $5.8 million in revenue for the year ended
March 2019.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. It also goes against the general trend of international trade
and e-commerce, and is not conducive to consume interests and the market competition in India.
Can the order be challenged in an Indian court?
Though it is unlikely that the companies concerned may take such step immediately But either
companies or any affected individual in India could challenge the blocking orders in court. The
courts will then decide whether the government has sufficient explanation to the nexus between
what these apps are alleged to be doing and the reasons adduced by the government such as
protection of national security and stragic interests. Courts will also consider if the ban is a
proportionate and necessary step to be taken, given the facts at hand.
1
S.69A is a content regulation tool

The second huge new utilization of S.69A here is its utilization as an apparatus for
accomplishing information security consistence. Meity's public statement prohibiting the
applications records expansive concerns including public security and sway concerns, emerging
from information security and protection worries, specifically from protests of applications
'taking and secretly communicating clients' information in an unapproved way to workers which
have areas outside India.'

Illicit information collecting is a worry for any application, Chinese or something else. S.69A, in
any case, isn't intended to manage information reaping, protection, or even (specialized) security
concerns. It is basically a substance guideline instrument, intended to manage irritating substance
by means of blocking admittance to it. The related Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for
Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 uncover as much― a solicitation to square data,
for example, must be went with 'printed test substance of the supposed culpable data'.

Range of apps banned

S.69A is accordingly essentially a law in exercise of the State's capacity under Article 19(2), to
limit free discourse which disregards the power, respectability, and so on., of the nation. The
official statement records a few public security concerns and related objections, yet doesn't list if
any substance related issues explicitly were found with these applications. Among the couple of
freely realized cases are the substance related issues against TikTok which prompted its short
boycott by the Madras High Court a year ago.

The scope of applications that have been restricted, further, make it harder to survey their
substance explicit ramifications. For example, aside from informal organizations, games, camera
applications, picture editors, and so forth that are prohibited, the official statement likewise
boycotts planning applications, video calling applications, report scanners and battery savers. It
is essentially information collecting and protection worries with these applications that is clear.
Addressing the lack of transparency

The recorded explanations behind the boycott and the choice of applications therefore make for
an official statement that is hard to comprehend. A perusing of the real request would make it
more clear the lawfulness of the request, specifically with respect to whether real substance
explicit issues emerged corresponding to the applications. A different issue with the official
statement that has been featured is that S.69A is a law intended to address explicit infringement
by individual applications, and not general infringement by an assortment of applications.
Together, the boycott of these 59 applications hence requires a different, proof based assessment
of the supposed substance infringement by each of the 59 applications.

Under the standards, be that as it may, the legislature is under no commitment to unveil the
request. In actuality, such requests are explicitly secured, requiring the keeping up of
classification w.r.t to the solicitations and protests got, and the activity taken.

Expecting that the reason for the classification provision is basically to secure the characters of
the people submitting the questions, the legislature ought to think about uncovering more on the
purposes for the boycott in light of a legitimate concern for straightforwardness. Legislative
activities are all things considered, subject to the standard of law, and the official statement
makes it at first sight hazy regarding how the boycott is consistent with law.
Conclusion
Directly, worries of information abuse have incited the Indian Government to refer to the sway,
safeguard and security of India and square these applications. Notwithstanding, if the
administration neglects to validate its cases under the steady gaze of an official courtroom in
future then it may bargain a significant hit to its notoriety globally. What is all the more
concerning is the way that such moves may even be made against Indian Companies and
Individuals also. Subsequently, permitting such an activity to proceed with unabated is a perilous
point of reference and is subject to be tested for the infringement of the important statements of
Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. For the time being, the least the legislature can do is to
make accessible in open area, the Interim Order expressing point by point motivations to
empower the immense number of Indian Citizens related with the applications to know the basis
behind the boycott.