Text of DIT's Response to Second RTI on Website Blocking
Government of India
Ministry of Communications & Information Technology
Department of Information Technology
Electronics Niketan, 6 CGO Complex,
New Delhi-110003
No: 14(12)/2011-ESD
10.6.2011
Shri Pranesh Prakash,
Centre for Internet and Society,
194, 2C Cross, Domlur Stage II,
Bangalore - 560071
Subject: Request for information under RTI Act, 2005.
Sir,
Reference your request dated 13 May 2011, which was received in this office on 18.5.2011 on the above subject.
The information as received from the custodian of information is attached herewith (Annexure-I, II and III).
Yours faithfully,
(A.K.Kaushik)
Additional Director & CPIO
Cyber Laws & E-Security Division
Tel: 011-24364803
Annexure I
Reply to Shri Pranesh Prakash
- How many orders have been issued for blocking of computer resources prior to the coming into force of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 (i.e., before October 27, 2009) under the Information Technology Act, 2000, or any other law for the time being in force.
Reply - Five orders were issued for blocking access to web content. - Please provide a list of all the websites for which the DIT has issued blocking orders and the dates on which each website was blocked.
Reply - The following websites have been blocked pursuant to court orders
Sl Website Date of issuing direction by designated officer 1. www.zone-h.org 08.03.2010 2. http://donotdiall00.webs.com (IP 216.52.115.50) 08.08.2010 3. www.bloggernews.net/124029 15.11.2010 4. http://www.google.co.in/#hl=en&source=hp&biw=-1276&bih=843&=dr+babasaheb+ambedkar+wallpaper&aq=4&aqi=gl0&aql=&oq=dr+babas& gs_ rfai=&fp=e791fe993fa412ba 20.12.2010 5. http://www.cinemahd.net/desktopenhancements/wallpaper/23945-wallpapers-beautiful-girl-wallpaper.html 20.12.2010 6. http://www.chakpak.com/find/images/kamasutra-hindi-movie 20.12.2010 7. http://www.submitlink.khatana.net/2010/09/jennifer-stano-is-engaged-to.html 20.12.2010 8. http://www.result.khatana.net/2010/11/im-no-panty-girl-yana-gupta-wardrobe.html 20.12.2010 9. http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-Hate-Ambedkar/172025102828076 25.02.2011 10. www.indybay.org 17.03.2011 11. www.arizona.indymedia.org 17.03.2011 - Please provide a list of all the persons to whom such orders were issued.
Reply - The directions were issued to Department of Telecommunications. - Please provide a list of all the requests for blocking of information that have been received by the Designated Officer under the Information Technology (Procedures and Safeguards for Blocking Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 ("Rules").
- Please provide a list of all persons/authorities from whom the Designated Officer under the Rules has received requests for blocking of information and the dates these requests were received.
Reply 4 & 5 - The details are given in Annexure-II. - Please provide the files on all the complaints and requests that have been rejected, including file noting.
- Please provide the files on all the complaints and requests that have been accepted, including file noting.
- Please provide the files on all the complaints and requests that are still being processed (e.g. more information has been sought on the request), including file notings.
Reply 6,7 & 8 - Files are available in section and can be viewed. - Please provide us copies of the minutes of all meetings held by the Committee for Examination of Requests under Rule 8(4) of the Rules.
- Please provide copies of all the recommendations of the Committee for Examination of requests under Rule 8(4) of the Rules.
Reply 9 & 10 - Copy of the minutes/recommendation of the meeting of the Committee is at Annexure III. - Please provide us the dates and copies of the minutes of all meetings held by the Review Committee under Rule 14 of the Rules to periodically review the blocked resources.
- Please provide us copies of all the findings of the Review Committee.
- If the Review Committee has not met, please provide us the reason for the meetings not happenings as per the requirement of Rule 14 of the Rules.
Reply 11, 12 & 13 - This meeting is coordinated by Department of Telecommunications and DIT is not in possession of details. - Does "intermediary" in Rule 13 include intermediaries not located in India?
Reply - Such type of information is not permitted under RTI Act as per DOPT OM No. 1/7/2009 - IR dated 1st June 2009. - Has any block ordered by the DIT ever been revoked by the DIT or any other governmental authority?
Reply - Such questions are not permitted under RTI Act as per DOPT OM No. 1 /7/2009 IR dated 1st June 2009. - On what basis does the DIT decide whether the appropriate intermediary is the person who has put up content, the web host, or the different Internet service providers in India?
Reply - Such type of information is not permitted under RTI Act as per DOPT OM No. 1/7/2009 - IR dated 1st June 2009. - Does Rule 16 of the Rules override the Right to Information Act?
Reply - Such type of information is not admissible under RTI Act as per DOPT OM No. 1/7/2009 - IR dated 1st June 2009. - If the answer to the previous question is yes, please provide any correspondence with any legal officer who provided the DIT advice that it could override the Right to Information Act through delegated legislation.
Reply - Such type of information is not admissible under RTI Act as per DOPT OM No. 1/7/2009 - IR dated 1st June 2009.
Annexure II
Request received by Designated Officer
Annexure III
Minutes of the meeting held on 24-08-2010 for the request for blocking of website www.betfair.com
- Dr. Gulshan Rai, Group Coordinator, Department of Information Technology
- Shri Dharmendra Sharma, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs
- Shri Arvind Kumar, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting
- Shri Ashok C. Prakash, Additional L.A., Department of Legal Affairs
- Shri B.J. Srinath, Sr. Director, CERT-In
The Committee discussed the case and observed that Govt. of Maharashtra has requested for blocking of website www.betfair.com on the grounds of "public order". The Committee also noted the reply from Cyber Crime Cell, Mumbai that no case has been registered against www.betfair.com. Further, no details suggesting the "impact" of the said site on public order has been made available by the State Government.
Keeping in view the directions of the Hon'ble High Court to dispose the application strictly as per law, the Committee assessed that based on the data/facts/details provided by Government of Maharashtra and Cyber Crime Cell, Mumbai, violation of section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 is not being established.
Download a scanned version of the letter received from the DIT office here [PDF, 1.74 MB]
