While the members of Parliament (MPs) have been demanding statistics in both Houses, about the number of instances in which the 2009 Blocking Rules were invoked to block public access to content on various social and digital media and getting no specific replies, a right to information (RTI) intervention has revealed that the committee has recommended blocking directions for a total of 6,268 Twitter URLs between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2022.
RTI also reveals that the committee constituted under Rule 7 to examine requests or complaints for blocking access to information met 53 times in 2022 as against 39 times in 2021. Otherwise, generally, various government-appointed committees hardly meet with such enthusiastic regularity.
Further, a total of 6,096 in 2021 and 6,775 in 2022 comprising all types of URLs such as webpages, websites, specific pages on social media platforms and so on were blocked. This information was provided by the central public information officer (CPIO) of the ministry of electronics & information technology (MeitY). The CPIO also replied that month-wise data about blocking directions issued by the committee was not being maintained.
The CPIO stated that all recommendations made by the committee in 2021 and 2022 for blocking public access to information were put up for the approval of the secretary, MeitY and his approval was obtained, on file, for all of them. The CPIO also replied that MeitY does not maintain date-wise information about these matters.
Venkatesh Nayak, director of Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI) and RTI activist, who invoked the RTI to MeitY, analyses his findings. He states that more than 237 URLs of Twitter were blocked per month in 2021 and that the average increased to more than 284 Twitter URLs blocked per month in 2022. He has taken the reference of the information given to Parliament while analysing his findings.
The number of Twitter URLs blocked increased in 2022 by nearly 20% as against the 2021 figures. There has been nearly a 4% increase in blocking social media content other than on Twitter. There has been an almost 36% increase over 2021 in the frequency of the committee meetings which met under Rule 7 of the 2009 Blocking Rules.
Further, according to MeitY's CPIO, all blocking orders (Twitter and other social and digital media content) recommended to the secretary, MeitY on file were approved in 2021 and 2022. So, the average for the secretary, MeitY works out to approving 508 orders per month. In 2022, this average rose to 564 approvals per month
States Mr Nayak, “In 2021 on an average, more than 270 blocking orders were issued per month for social and digital media content other than Twitter. The average in this category of blocking orders rose to almost 280 per month in 2022.”
Mr Nayak sought the following information under RTI:
"I. I would like to obtain access to the following information under the RTI Act, 2005 with regard to the implementation of Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 & the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, in the form specified at paragraph no. (II) below:
1) The total number of organisations under the Union Government that have intimated to the Department of Information Technology (DeitY), the appointment of their Nodal Officers under Rule 4, as on date,
2) The State & Union Territory (UT)-wise number of organisations that have intimated to DeitY the appointment of their Nodal Officers under Rule 4, as on date,
3) A legible copy of the official records containing the name & rank of the current Designated Officer under Rule 3 & the name & rank of the current Chairperson & Members of the Committee constituted under Rule 7,
4) The exact dates on which the Committee constituted under Rule 7 held its meeting since 01 January, 2021 till date,
5) The number of requests received from Nodal Officers designated by organisations under:
a) the Central Government,
b) every State Government, &
c) every UT administration-
for blocking Twitter URLs that were placed before the Committee constituted under Rule 7, for examination, during the aforementioned period,
6) The month-wise number of recommendations issued by the Committee constituted under Rule 7, upon examination of every aforementioned request placed before it, during the aforementioned period,
7) The exact date on which every recommendation referred to at sub-paragraph no. (6) above, was forwarded to the Secretary, DeitY under Rule 8(5),
8) The total number of recommendations referred to at sub-paragraph no. (6) above, which received the approval of the Secretary, DeitY under Rule 8(6), along with the exact date on which every approval was communicated by the said Secretary to the Designated Officer,
9) The total number of recommendations referred to at sub-paragraph no. (6) above, which did not receive the approval of the Secretary, DeitY, along with the exact date on which such non-approval was communicated by the said Secretary to the Designated Officer,
10) The exact dates on which the Review Committee specified in Rule 14 held its meeting during the aforementioned period, &
11) The total number of orders issued by the aforementioned Review Committee setting aside the directions to block Twitter URLs during the aforementioned period.
II. Form of access: Kindly publish all the information described at paragraph no. (I) above on your official website & inform me of the respective URLs by email.
III. Kindly note, all information described above is in the nature of information that is required to be disclosed suo motu under various clauses of Section 4(1) read with Section 4(2) of the RTI Act. As I have not been able to find any of this information on your website, I am submitting this formal request."
The Reply
After a delay of 40 days, MeitY's CPIO uploaded an unsigned reply on the RTI online facility giving information against some queries but rejecting others citing the strict confidentiality requirement under Rule 16 of the 2009 Blocking Rules (see the 2nd attachment).
Twitter Goes to Court
On 5 July 2022,
Twitter, Inc. moved the High Court of Karnataka against a bunch of blocking and take-down orders issued by MeitY. After issuing notice and conducting a hearing or two publicly, the single bench agreed to receive the copies of blocking and take-down orders from the petitioner in a sealed cover. It also opened the envelope and put the contents back again as the petitioner and respondent (i.e., the Union of India) "graciously and rightly" requested it to do so (this phrase in double quotes is from one of the Court's daily orders- see the 3rd attachment). The Union government put in a request for in camera (behind closed doors) hearing of the matter. It is not clear whether the Court has granted this request.
Having read media reports about this curious matter, another RTI application was submitted to MeitY through the RTI online facility stating as follows:
"I. In relation to the litigation instituted before the Hon. High Court of Karnataka (Principal Bench at Bengaluru) in the matter of Twitter Inc. vs Union of India, W.P. No. 13710/2022, I would like to obtain access to the following information from your public authority under the RTI Act, 2005, in the form specified at paragraph no. (II) below:
1) A legible photocopy of the complete set of documents containing the text of the Writ Petition along with all annexures served by the Petitioner on Respondents No. 1 and No. 2, in the aforementioned matter,
2) A legible copy of the complete set of documents containing the text of the reply of Respondents No. 1 and No. 2 to the said Writ Petition, along with annexures, if any, served on the Petitioner in the aforementioned matter,
3) A legible copy of all written submissions along with annexures, if any, whose copies were served by the Petitioner on Respondents No. 1 and No. 2 subsequent to the admission of the Writ Petition by the Hon. High Court of Karnataka in the aforementioned matter, till date, and
4) A legible copy of all replies/counters/rejoinders, by whatever name called, along with annexures, if any, whose copies were served by Respondents No. 1 and No. 2 on the Petitioner subsequent to the receipt of written submissions referred to at sub-paragraph no. (3) above, in the aforementioned matter, till date.
II. Form of access requested: Kindly upload all the information described above on your official website and inform me of the respective URLs by email.
MeitY's Reply
After a delay of 41 days, the CPIO uploaded a one-line reply on the
RTI online facility stating as follows:
"Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has fiduciary relationship hence the requested information can not be shared."
Analysis
Mr Nayak, commenting on the RTI replies, says, “The data with regard to the issuance of blocking orders obtained under RTI and analysed above shows the absurdity of the situation- the secretary MeitY and the review committee are required to apply their mind to hundreds of such orders every month before giving their approval. How much time they have actually devoted to such matters is anybody's guess. Further, every stage of the blocking mechanism is completely government-dominated. This is highly undesirable given the latest controversy that the BBC's documentary film on the 2002 Gujarat violence has created. Such matters must be impartially examined by a body of independent experts as the government will always be an interested party.
“The judicial process: It is also very worrying that the Hon. High Court of Karnataka has granted so much latitude to the petitioner in the on-going case against the blocking orders. What has been blocked on Twitter through these orders would have been seen by thousands of Tweeples. The need for secrecy in such matters is perplexing to say the very least. If constitutional courts permit sealed-cover procedures while hearing matters whose cause of action relates to materials that were once in the public domain, people’s faith in the judicial process will begin to take a severe beating.”
(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife. She is also the convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting, which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book “To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte” with Vinita Kamte and is the author of “The Mighty Fall”.)
