wordpress blog stats
Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

, ,

MEITY says Section 69A orders cannot be disclosed, subject to ‘strictly confidentiality’


The Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology refused to disclose the details of their orders to censor certain Twitter handles and tweets in India earlier this year, in a letter to the Internet Freedom Foundation on April 26.

On February 08, IFF demanded that MEITY make its blocking orders to Twitter public. The response, which came from “Team 69A” at the ministry, argued that under rules notified for the eponymous section of the IT Act, blocking orders are subject to “strict confidentiality”. “The orders passed by the committee cannot be made publically available as strict confidentiality is to be maintained in regards of the actions taken under section 69A,” the government wrote in its response to IFF’s initial letter.

IFF, however, said that this is incorrect, as Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, only provides confidentiality for complaints.

“[…] your interpretation of Rule 16 […] is misplaced. It is premised on an incorrect understanding of the Rules. The confidentiality requirement of Rule 16 pertains to the complaints received by MeitY on the basis of which it took the action, and does not and cannot be taken to mean that the blocking orders issued by MeitY are also to be kept confidential,” IFF Associate Counsel Rohin Garg wrote in a “Without Prejudice” response, indicating that IFF is keeping open the option of going to court over this issue.

“According to paragraph 115 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in Shreya Singhal, where the originator is identified, which in the present case is true for many blocked twitter accounts, the originator must be presented an opportunity to be heard before a blocking order is passed. Even in instances of emergency blocking, a post-decisional hearing must be provided,” Garg added. [emphasis his]

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

Also read

Written By

I cover the digital content ecosystem and telecom for MediaNama.

MediaNama’s mission is to help build a digital ecosystem which is open, fair, global and competitive.



The Delhi High Court should quash the government's order to block Tanul Thakur's website in light of the Shreya Singhal verdict by the Supreme...


Releasing the policy is akin to putting the proverbial 'cart before the horse'.


The industry's growth is being weighed down by taxation and legal uncertainty.


Due to the scale of regulatory and technical challenges, transparency reporting under the IT Rules has gotten off to a rocky start.


Here are possible reasons why Indians are not generating significant IAP revenues despite our download share crossing 30%.

You May Also Like


Google has released a Google Travel Trends Report which states that branded budget hotel search queries grew 179% year over year (YOY) in India, in...


135 job openings in over 60 companies are listed at our free Digital and Mobile Job Board: If you’re looking for a job, or...


Rajesh Kumar* doesn’t have many enemies in life. But, Uber, for which he drives a cab everyday, is starting to look like one, he...


By Aroon Deep and Aditya Chunduru You’re reading it here first: Twitter has complied with government requests to censor 52 tweets that mostly criticised...

MediaNama is the premier source of information and analysis on Technology Policy in India. More about MediaNama, and contact information, here.

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ

Subscribe to our daily newsletter
Your email address:*
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ