Central Information Commission (CIC): While considering the instant second appeal wherein the appellant was aggrieved due to denial of information regarding blocking of X (formerly Twitter) accounts covering farmer’s protests and blocking of X accounts of those critical of the government; the Bench of Heeralal Samariya, CIC, found the decision of Public Information Officer’s (PIO) to refuse the afore-said information, as appropriate and within the precincts of RTI Act.
The appellant filed an RTI application on 15-6-2023 seeking the following information:
-
correspondence with (file notings) emails phone calls made by concerns/competent authorities/ Ministry of Information and Technology with X (formerly Twitter) relating to blocking accounts covering farmers’ protests and those critical of the government;
-
reply by X (formerly Twitter) to correspondence with (file notings) emails phone calls made by concerns/ competent authorities/ Ministry of Information and Technology etc with X (formerly Twitter) relating to blocking accounts covering farmers’ protests and those critical of the government.
-
correspondence with (file notings) emails phone calls made by concerns/ competent authorities/Ministry of Information and Technology to X (formerly Twitter) relating to threatening with “a shutdown” and conducting raids at its employees’ homes in the country.
-
Reply by X to correspondence with (file notings) emails phone calls made by concerns/competent authorities/ Ministry of Information and Technology etc., relating to threatening with “a shutdown” and conducting raids at its employees’ homes in the country.
In its response, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) refused to provide the afore-stated information citing Section 69-A, IT Act, 2000. The CPIO further stated that blocking of any X (formerly Twitter) handle/URL had been dealt with under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 published with Section 69-A of the IT Act. 2000, which is confidential in nature and cannot be disclosed. Furthermore, as per Rule 16 of Information Technology Rules, 2009, strict confidentiality shall be maintained regarding all the requests and complaints received and actions taken thereof. Further, as section 69-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 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. Thus, it attracts provisions of 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act 2005. Hence, as per RTI Act, the information asked for was exempted..
The appellant filed a First Appeal, which met with the same afore-stated response. Aggrieved, he filed the instant Second Appeal before CIC wherein he expressed his discontentment with the afore-stated responses.
Upon perusal of the record in the instant matter, the CIC stated that an appropriate response had been sent by the Respondents to the Appellant which is in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Hence the instant second appeal was disposed of accordingly.
[Vihar Durve v. PIO, Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology, CIC/MOEIT/A/2023/652250, decided on 29-11-2024]
Order by Heeralal Samariya, Chief Information Commissioner
