Thread by @internetfreedom

Thread 🧵

Reports suggest that a large number of Twitter accounts which were sharing information about the farmers' protests have been blocked by MeitY under the opaque Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. 1/n

Section 69A and the IT Blocking Rules prevent intermediaries like Twitter from disclosing any information about blocking of an account or tweet. 2/n

The confidentiality requirement present under Rule 16 of the IT Blocking Rules creates a bizarre situation where citizens have the right to challenge blocking of online content but they are unable to do so because they don't have access to these legal orders. 3/n

IFF is representing @Plebeian42 in a Delhi HC case which challenges the confidentiality requirement under Rule 16 and seeks a clarification that creators of content must be provided access to blocking orders. 4/n

internetfreedom.in/delhi-hc-issue…

MeitY has claimed that Rule 16 is necessary to protect complainants and whistleblowers but hasn't explained why blocking orders issued by government officials cannot be provided after redacting personal details, if any. 5/n

internetfreedom.in/meity-defends-…

Section 69A was a blindspot in the otherwise celebrated judgement in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, and it continues to enable secret censorship by the executive branch without any independent judicial oversight. 6/n

livelaw.in/columns/shreya…