Thread by @internetfreedom

In February, Twitter disabled 200+ accounts in the backdrop of the farmer’s protests. @GoI_MeitY has now confirmed to us that this action was authorised by law, and has denied recalling or disclosing the blocking orders. We've written back. A thread.
1/n
internetfreedom.in/meity-response…

On February 1, Twitter accounts of news organisations, activists, and farmers groups were reportedly blocked in response to a legal request from @GoI_MeitY. Here's a timeline outlining account restoration, MeitY's subsequent notice to Twitter, and Twitter's clarification:
2/n

We wrote to @GoI_MeitY on February 8 noting that the lack of a clear process of a prior notice and hearing, the secrecy around the orders, and the breach of the SC's directions made this an unconstitutional and disproportionate exercise of censorship.
3/n
internetfreedom.in/government-cen…

On April 26 @GoI_MeitY emailed us saying they followed due process under section 69A and the Blocking Rules. Under Rule 16 all actions must be confidential, thus the directions to block Twitter accounts were fair but cannot be made public.
4/n

Most recently on May 5, we responded to @GoI_MeitY urging them again to make the orders available. This disclosure is necessary to bring their actions in accordance with requirements of the IT Act, SC's directions, constitutional values, and principles of natural justice.
5/n

Section 69A is subject to safeguards stipulating that reasons have to be recorded in such orders so that they may be assailed in a writ petition. Further where the originator is identified, they must have an opportunity to be heard before an order is passed under Rule 8.
6/n

Even in instances of emergency blocking, a post-decisional hearing must be provided. We pointed out in our letter that no such opportunity was afforded to the accounts that were disabled.
7/n

The confidentiality requirement of Rule 16 pertains to complaints on the basis of which @GoI_MeitY takes actions. It does not mean that blocking orders are to be kept confidential. This reading violates the SC's directions in Shreya Singhal and Anuradha Bhasin judgements.
8/n

We are publishing @GoI_MeitY's response in full for the sake of transparency and will keep you updated on the response to our latest representation. We believe transparency in any act of censorship is necessary to maintain democratic values.
9/n
drive.google.com/file/d/1H2xcqe…