The Central Information Commission upheld the denial of information by the Public Information Officer regarding the blocking of X accounts linked to farmers’ protests, citing national security and confidentiality under the IT Act and RTI Act. The case emphasizes the balance between transparency and the protection of sensitive information essential for safeguarding national interests.
New Delhi: In a recent decision, the Central Information Commission (CIC) upheld the refusal of the Public Information Officer (PIO) to disclose details about the blocking of X accounts (formerly Twitter) related to the farmers’ protests and accounts critical of the government. Chief Information Commissioner Heeralal Samariya ruled that the PIO’s decision was aligned with the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 and relevant provisions of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000.
The appellant, Vihar Durve, filed an RTI application on June 15, 2023, requesting the following details:
- Correspondence, file notings, emails, and phone calls between competent authorities of the Ministry of Information and Technology and X regarding blocking accounts covering farmers’ protests or critical of the government.
- Similar records related to threats of “shutdown” or raids on X employees’ homes.
The PIO denied the information, citing Section 69-A of the IT Act, 2000, which governs the procedure for blocking access to information and mandates confidentiality. The IT Rules, 2009, also require strict confidentiality for such actions.
The PIO justified the denial of information under the following legal provisions:
- Section 69-A of the IT Act, 2000: Blocking of accounts and URLs involves matters of sovereignty, security, and strategic interests of the State.
- Rule 16 of the IT Rules, 2009: Maintains confidentiality of all requests, complaints, and actions related to blocking orders.
- Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005: Exempts disclosure of information that could affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, national security, or relations with foreign states.
The appellant filed a First Appeal, which was met with the same response. Dissatisfied, he approached the CIC with a Second Appeal, arguing against the PIO’s decision.
After reviewing the records, the CIC concluded that the PIO’s response was appropriate and aligned with the RTI Act and IT Rules.
“An appropriate response had been sent by the Respondents to the Appellant which is in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act,”
the CIC observed.
The CIC emphasized that the confidentiality required under Section 69-A and Rule 16 was essential to safeguard national interests and security. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed.
The case highlights the intersection of transparency and confidentiality in matters concerning national security and the regulation of digital platforms. It underscores the robust framework under Section 69-A of the IT Act, which protects sensitive information related to account blocking orders.
Case Details
- Case Name: Vihar Durve v. PIO, Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology
- Case Number: CIC/MOEIT/A/2023/652250
- Decision Date: November 29, 2024
- Bench: Heeralal Samariya, Chief Information Commissioner
This decision reaffirms the balance between the right to information and the need to safeguard national security and public order.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE