RTI Act: CIC Upholds Denial Of Information On Blocking Of 'X' Accounts Covering Farmers' Protests And Those Critical Of Government

Disposing of an appeal moved by a RTI applicant against denial of information pertaining to blocking of 'X' accounts covering "farmers' protests and those critical of the government", the Central Information Commission said that the response of the Public Information Officer (PIO) was "appropriate and well within the precincts of the RTI Act".

Chief Information Commissioner Heeralal Samariya in his decision said, "Perusal of records of the case reveals that appropriate response had been sent by the Respondent to the Appellant which is in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Since the response sent by the PIO is found appropriate and well within the precincts of the RTI Act, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed off accordingly".

The CIC was hearing the RTI applicant's second appeal, after the rejection of his first appeal, which had upheld the response of the CPIO denying the information sought by him.

The appellant-applicant in his RTI application had sought complete correspondence with (file noting) emails, phone calls made by competent authorities/Ministry of Information and Technology etc., with social media platform 'X' (formerly known as Twitter) (social media Platform) relating to blocking of accounts covering farmers' protests and those critical of the government.

The information sought also included reply by X to the correspondence with (file notings) emails, phone calls made by competent authorities/Ministry of Information and Technology etc with X relating to such accounts.

The applicant had also sought complete correspondence with (file notings) emails, phone calls made by competent authorities/Ministry of Information and Technology etc., with X relating to "threatening with 'a shut down' and conducting raids at its employees' homes in the country". The applicant also sought X's reply to this correspondence as well.

The CPIO in its response had said that Section 69A of the IT Act empowers Government to block information from public access under specific conditions including–interest of sovereignty and integrity of India; defence of India; security of the State; friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above.

CPIO said that the information sought in the RTI was not available. "Further blocking of any Twitter handle/URL. has been dealt under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 published with Section 69A of the IT Act 2000, which is confidential in nature and cannot be disclosed. As per Rule 16 of Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, strict confidentiality shall be maintained regarding all the requests and complaints received and actions taken thereof," the response said.

It also said that section 69A of the Information Technology Act and its matters are "related to sovereignty and integrity of India, the security, strategic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence"; this attracts provisions of 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. Such information asked is exempted as per RTI Act, the response stated.

Against this the appellant applicant moved a first appeal before the appellate authority which said that "there is no additional information is available to offer", reiterating that the sought information is exempted under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. The appellant applicant thereafter moved a second appeal.

Before the CIC, the appellant contended that he was not satisfied with the response sent by the Respondent and sought the information as specified in his RTI application.

The Respondent meanwhile reiterated that the information sought by the Appellant had been duly declined for reasons clearly specified in the PIOs' reply. He averred that the information sought by the Appellant attracts provisions of Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act 2005 and is thus it is exempt as per RTI Act

Case title: Vihar Durve v/s PIO, Ministry Of Electronics & Information Technology

Click Here To Read/Download Order