Central Information Commission
Rattanmeek vs Deptt Of Information Technology on 27 February, 2023
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/MOEIT/A/2022/119490 +
CIC/MOEIT/A/2022/637686 +
CIC/MOEIT/A/2022/637693 +
CIC/DEOIT/A/2022/622943
In the matter of
Rattanmeek
... Appellant
VS
1. Scientist -G & Group Coordinator/ Nodal Officer
Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology (MEiTY)
Department of Electronics & Information Technology
Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003
2. CPIO (Cyber Law)
Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology (MEiTY)
Department of Electronics & Information Technology
Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110 003
...Respondents
Date of Hearing : 23/02/2023 Date of Decision : 23/02/2023 The following were present: Appellant: Present
Respondent: Gaurav Gupta, Scientist E and CPIO, Cyber Law Division, present over VC
1. In File No. CIC/MOEIT/A/2022/119490:
RTI application CPIO replied on First appeal First Appellate Second Appeal filed on filed on Authority order dated 15/02/2022 21/03/2022 23/03/2022 31/03/2022 25/04/2022 1 Information Sought:
There was a statement made by Union Minister of Electronics and Information Technology that 54 applications had been banned due to privacy and security issues. In this regard, the appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the names of applications which were blocked.
2. Provide copies of the orders under which the said websites were blocked.
2. In File No. CIC/MOEIT/A/2022/637686:
RTI application CPIO replied on First appeal First Appellate Second Appeal filed on filed on Authority order dated 01/06/2022 20/06/2022 22/06/2022 23/06/2022 11/07/2022 Information Sought:
With reference to 47 websites/ urls, as mentioned in the RTI application, blocked by the MEiTY, the appellant has sought the following information:
1. Whether the said websites/ urls have been blocked by the Ministry.
2. Provide copies of the orders issued for blocking of the said websites.
3. In File No. CIC/MOEIT/A/2022/637693:
RTI application CPIO replied on First appeal First Appellate Second Appeal filed on filed on Authority order dated 02/06/2022 20/06/2022 22/06/2022 04/07/2022 11/07/2022 Information Sought:
1. Whether videolan.org has been blocked by the Ministry?
2. Provide a copy of the order issued by the Ministry through which videolan.org was blocked.
3. Provide date on which videolan.org was blocked.
4. Provide reasons for blocking the videolan.org.
4. In File No. CIC/DEOIT/A/2022/622943:
RTI application CPIO replied on First appeal First Appellate Second Appeal filed on filed on Authority order dated 15/02/2022 21/03/2022 23/03/2022 31/03/2022 21/04/2022 2 Information Sought:
There was a statement made by Union Minister of Electronics and Information Technology that 54 applications were banned due to privacy and security issues. In this regard, the appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the names of applications which were blocked.
2. Provide copies of the orders under which the said websites were blocked.
Grounds for filing Second Appeals:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that reliance on Rule 16 of 2009 for not giving information relating to the name of applications, websites and videolan being denied without any reasoning is not proper.
She further relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court of India dated 24.03.2015 , in the matter of Shreya Singhal vs Union of India-
"116. It must first be appreciated that Section 79 is an exemption provision. Being an exemption provision, it is closely related to provisions which provide for offences including Section 69A. We have seen how under Section 69A blocking can take place only by a reasoned order after complying with several procedural safeguards including a hearing to the originator and intermediary. We have also seen how there are only two ways in which a blocking order can be passed - one by the Designated Officer after complying with the 2009 Rules and the other by the Designated Officer when he has to follow an order passed by a competent court. The intermediary applying its own mind to whether information should or should not be blocked is noticeably absent in Section 69A read with 2009 Rules."
The CPIO submitted that suitable replies were given in all the four cases. Observations:
3The Commission observed that some of the name of applications and websites which are blocked from time to time by MeitY are already in public domain through print media and digital media. Moreover, as the CPIO explained that the URL provided in respect of Video.lan is not available in their database the same should be categorically informed to the appellant. As far as the orders under which the websites were blocked is concerned, the respondents rightly pointed out that the appellant has not asked for court orders which are in public domain, but the orders of the Ministry and this is exempted from disclosure under the appropriate provisions of the IT Act, 2000 alongwith the matching provisions of Sec 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
In respect of case no. 119490, the CPIO on 21.03.2022 replied to the appellant and stated that MeitY is empowered to issue directions for access of information by public u/s 69A of the IT Act, 2000. The due process being followed is defined in the IT (Procedure and safeguards for blocking for access of information by public) Rules, 2009. A copy of the said rule was given. Sec 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 offence relating to above. The detailed process for blocking of websites/URLS is notified through IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information for Public) Rules, 2009. As per Rule 16 of the IT (Procedure and Safeguards for blocking for access of information by public Rules, 2009, strict confidentiality shall be maintained regarding all the requests and complaints received and actions taken thereof. The information asked in the RTI comes under Rule 16 of IT (Procedure and Safeguards for blocking for Access of information by Public) Rules, 2009 which is confidential in nature. Further, as sec 69A of the IT Act, 2000 and its matters are related to sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of nation, relation with foreign state. Thus, it attracts provisions of Sec 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. Hence, information asked is exempted as per the RTI Act. In respect of case no. 637686 and 622943 a similar reply was given on 20.06.2022 and 21.03.2022 respectively.
In respect of case no. 637693 the CPIO replied that no information is available with the Ministry related to videolan.org website.
4The Commission observed that Section 69 of the IT Act allows the government to issue content-blocking orders to online intermediaries such as Internet Service Providers (ISPs), telecom service providers, web hosting services, search engines, online marketplaces, etc. The name of the websites and the applications which were banned as well as the related office orders were sought for and the blanket exemption sought u/s 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act is not applicable as there are cases where detailed information was given by MTNL, in respect of case no. CIC/MTNLT/A/2021/624080, where another applicant Anushka Jain had asked for similar information.
The names of the websites which were blocked can be given as the matter is over. Moreover, due care can be exercised while disclosing the information in each of the cases, and the CPIO shall provide the information after applying Sec 10 of the RTI Act. Those names of the websites shall be given masking those websites details where the disclosure may be prejudicial to security of the nation, relation with foreign State or leading to incitement of an offence as covered under Sec 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the CPIO is directed to provide a point-wise revised reply after applying Sec 10 of the RTI Act wherever applicable in each of the cases mentioned above and provide those names of the websites which have been blocked as sought for, to the appellant within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission opined that the details of the orders sought for need not be given as they are covered under Sec 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु!त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
5