With reference to the Draft Rules under section 69A of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, available at http://www.mit.gov.in/down
(i) Lack of neutral party: There is no provision in the Draft Rules where the request for blocking information is examined by a neutral third-party (say, a court designated for this purpose) before being enforced. This leaves the law open to abuse by persons "in power" who want to curb any criticism (published on the Internet) aimed towards them. In other words this creates a situation where the plaintiff, himself is the judge.
(ii) Lack of representation: There is absolutely no provision in the Act which gives the publisher (against whom the request for blocking has been initiated) a right to a fair hearing in front of a neutral third-party. I realize that on the Internet, which lends itself to anonymity, identifying & notifying the publisher of a particular information resource is difficult. However, there needs to be a process in place using which the Designated Officer first needs to notify the publisher against whom a Request for blocking is pending. This process may include: (a) emailing the contact person mentioned on the website/resource, (b) notifying the ISP on which the website/resource is hosted, (c) general notice on the Minister of Information Technology's website, etc. This is analogous to various "Notices" that any government agency serves before taking drastic action against a person -- like sealing of property, or disconnection of electricity/water supply.
I have worked in the IT industry for 5 years and I understand the need for tighter regulation and stronger cyber-laws. However, these need to be balanced against (a) right to freedom of speech & expression, and (b) right to a fair trial. In my opinion, the Draft Rules completely oversteps these constitutional rights in a bid to provide the governing agencies with more power.