Thread by @internetfreedom

Since May 2020, @OfficialSauravD has been denied critical information about the widely criticised privacy and security aspects of Aarogya Setu. IFF has been representing Mr. Das in court. Today, we are making known the details of this case.
internetfreedom.in/how-we-are-hel…
1/n

@OfficialSauravD has already found via RTIs that Aarogya Setu does not comply with its own data sharing protocols. He sought a copy of its entire file which contained info about the proposal's origins, govt depts involved, correspondence between pvt sector and officials, etc.
2/n

After not responding for 3 months (the time limit for responding to RTI requests is 30 days!), Public Information Officers of the National Informatics Centre, e-Governance Division, and MeitY all claimed that the information was not held by their departments.
3/n

Aggrieved, Saurav approached the CIC, who observed that this denial of information was unreasonable. But the CIC did not allow Saurav to attend CIC’s show cause against the CPIOs, and eventually dropped the proceedings, holding that all information has been provided.
4/n

Lawyers from IFF, comprising @TanmayPratapS and @Krishnesh78, and led by @VrindaBhandari, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the CIC’s order. Parties were directed by the Court to file a chart detailing the information sought and provided.
5/n

Our chart listed specific non-compliances that required intervention. The Respondents' chart however brought up other RTI requests filed regarding completely different aspects of Aarogya Setu, incorrectly claiming that CPIOs responded entirely to all information requests.
6/n

We filed a rejoinder explaining that the information in the public domain, and provided by the Respondents, relates to the functioning of Aarogya Setu. Saurav's request related to the decision making carried out away from the public gaze, i.e. the creation of Aarogya Setu.
7/n

We also highlighted other inconsistencies. For example, the CPIOs had initially claimed that no information was available with them, but it became evident through their subsequent responses that the information was available with the Respondents all along.
8/n

The matter has been posted for August 25, 2021, and we will keep you updated. In the spirit of transparency, and given public interest, we are making the pleadings available since they have come on record of the Court. Access them in the blog post above!
9/n

We need your help and support in ensuring that we continue our efforts in demanding transparency from the authorities. Support us through one time donations or becoming a member with us. Donate now!

internetfreedom.in/donate