For years the Indian government has been requesting the social media companies to take down posts or suspend entire accounts, which may or may not be critical to it.
However, it refuses to share with the public which all accounts or posts it has thus censored.
In an apparent extension of the opacity trend, the Election Commission of India, an independent entity, recently asked social media platform X to take down select posts of YSR Congress, AAP, N Chandrababu Naidu and Bihar Deputy Chief Minister Samrat Choudhary for violation of model code of conduct.
The Elon Musk-owned platform complied with the order but not without registering a protest.
"In compliance with the orders, we have withheld these posts for the remainder of the election period. However, we disagree with these actions and maintain that freedom of expression should extend to these posts and political speech in general," the company said in a post.
"We have notified the affected users and in the interest of transparency, we are publishing the takedown orders here. We call on the Election Commission to publish all of its takedown orders going forward," it added.
Responding to an RTI plea recently, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology refused to divulge the names of accounts on X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook it requested the suspension of over the years, saying the information is confidential in nature and may affect the security of the state.
The RTI plea filed by this journalist had sought the names of X and Facebook accounts the central ministry requested the suspension of since January 1, 2019.
The ministry's cyber laws department, however, refused to share the information and cited Rule 16 of the IT Rules, 2009, according to which, the government reserves the right to maintain "strict confidentiality" about "all the requests and complaints received and action taken thereof" in the matter.
"Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000 empowers Government to block information from public access under specific conditions of: (i) interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, (ii) defence of India, (iii) security of the State, (iv) friendly relations with foreign States or (v) public order or (vi) for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offense relating to above," the government's response read.
It said that since "section 69A 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" the query attracts section 8 1 (a) of RTI Act, which exempts the government from revealing information.
The same government, however, had earlier shared with Parliament the data on social media accounts or posts taken down at its request.
Junior IT Minister Rajeev Chandrasekhar had on December 8 told Lok Sabha that the ministry blocked 36,838 URLs in all between 2018 and 2023 under Section 69A of the IT Act 2000.
The minister had given the information responding to a query by CPI-Marxist MP John Brittas.
The blocked URLs included 10,197 Facebook profiles and 13,660 X accounts and spanned across social media platforms, according to the information.
A couple of lawyers shared their views on the legality of the provisions cited by the government while refusing the information.
Supreme Court Advocate Mohit Kumar Gupta said the government's ruling, even when read with Rule 16 of the IT Rules, 2009 mandating strict confidentiality, "does not any way cripple the ambit of the RTI Act, 2005, which in itself pursuant to Section 22 … has overriding effect."
Gupta said, "Strict confidentiality, in terms of levels of confidentiality, required to be maintained by the department is for the department alone, and has nothing to do with public disclosure of information to the citizens of the country."
He added, "The interests sought to be protected through confidentiality clause in the rules are understood to be with respect to the contents of the complaint… however, it cannot partake the umbrella of blanket secrecy and must satisfy proportionality and non-arbitrariness in terms of Article 19."
Another Supreme Court Advocate, V P Singh, differed with the view, contending the information may constitute an invasion of privacy of the individuals, and thus can justifiably be kept secret.
"The Right to Information Act under Section 8 categorically mentions that personal information cannot be supplied which has no relation to any public interest. Any disclosure of any personal information including the names of the FB accounts, which has no relation to any public activity or interest and revelation of which may cause 'unwarranted invasion' into the privacy of the individual cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act.
"So I believe that the government not disclosing the names of the persons is correct on the legal standpoint in the light of various decisions of the Hon'ble HC of Delhi," Singh said.
Of the hundreds of URLs thus sent out of existence in secret was the one that belonged to Hindutva Watch, a vociferous chronicler of hate crime in the country.
On January 16, the X account of Hindutva Watch was suspended and later in the month, its website too became inaccessible.
"It seems the government has a problem with our work documenting hate speeches and hate crimes. They don't want any record or trace of it," Hindutva Watch founder Raqib Hameed Naik told this journalist in an email.
"People in India can no longer access our reporting. In fact, the police, who in the past have utilized many of the incidents we brought to light to take action, can no longer view the videos of hate crimes and hate speeches we share," he said.
The US-based journalist said, though the website is not subject to any legal action from India since it is beyond the country's jurisdiction, it received no notice or intimation from the country before its X account was suspended.
"Documenting hate crimes and hate speeches is not a crime. It is an unfortunate reality that individuals delivering hate speeches filled with calls to violence remain untouched by the police, while those who document or report such incidents become targets of state scrutiny.
"Our platform's handle was arbitrarily withheld without any prior notice or communication from the government, a clear violation of our rights," Naik said.
What happened with Hindutva Watch was not a sole incident.
The central government had earlier taken exception to several posts users made on X in reference to a BBC documentary on 2002 Godhra riots, which hinted at involvement of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, then chief minister of Gujarat.
According to a notice contributed by Twitter to Lumen database – a Harvard University internet project – in January 2023, the social media site removed at least 50 posts made in reference to the documentary 'India: Modi Question,' at the request of the Indian IT ministry.
At least one of these posts was by Rajya Sabha MP from Trinamool Congress Derek O'Brien and several by journalists and civil rights activists.
Image Source: Unsplash
Comentarios