Jump to content
Sajib Nandi

Unconstitutional Twitter blocks: Apar Gupta

Recommended Posts

Sajib Nandi

Curious case of unconstitutional Twitter blocks


By Apar Gupta in Dailyo.in on 11.8.2017




To people who do not use twitter, it seems like a trifling distraction. Bursts of opinion by idling yappers. While such criticism may bear some truth, twitter like any content agnostic platform provides a range of functions beyond the collective appreciation of cat memes. This includes direct communications with our public representatives and government officials. A cursory glance at a list of the twitter accounts of Indian ministries and functionaries curated by Raheel Khursheed reveals its extensive use by the government.


Beyond their mere presence on twitter, public officials also provide what are termed as e-governance services. These include the publication of public policy and press releases. However, unlike traditional media, twitter is much more than a broadcast medium. It allows a deep level of interactivity between the citizen and the state.


An almost instant, frictionless facility to directly petition government departments and ministries with proposals and complaints. This is recognised in the "Framework and Guidelines for Use of Social Media by Government Departments" issued by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology.


But often our interactions with the government are less than civil. People are seldom satisfied and use every chance to level criticism, ridicule and even forms of harassment. But can Government departments and functionaries block users when it hurts? More importantly, is blocking legal? Personally, this was far from a moot question when following a set of tweets posted below the Hon'ble union minister of state for heavy industries and public Enterprises, Shri Babul Supriyo blocked me on twitter.


After these tweets the Hon'ble Minister blocked my account, viz. prevented me from accessing his tweets (reading them instantaneously), interacting with them (reply, quote, retweet, broadcast) and even checking his account activity (reading the bio, followers etc.) [read more on blocking here].


As I had stated before when UIDAI [unique Identity Authority of India] blocked users on twitter, I consider twitter blocks by public authorities/functionaries a breach of the constitutional right to receive information. This short piece sets out the reasoning for the proposition.



The right to receive information


Most people are aware of the constitutional status of the freedom of speech and expression being a fundamental right arises from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The ambit of this right is subject to Article 19(2) that contains, "reasonable restrictions", such restrictions are within express categories namely, "the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence".


Hence to make any such restriction, it should first be under a legal order. Secondly it requires reasonability, and third, it has to be within the classifications provided under Article 19(2). For further explanation, please refer to the link below.


The position that the right to speech also includes the right to receive information was first observed by Supreme Court of India in the case of State of UP vs Raj Narain (1975) 4 SCC 428 when the court stated, "The right to know, which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute, is a factor which should make one wary, when secrecy is claimed for transactions which can, at any rate, have no repercussion on public security" [Mathew, J. at 453].


This was then firmly linked to Article 19(1)(a) in the case of SP Gupta vs Union of India (1985) 1 SCC 641 with the judgement noting that, "the concept of an open government is the direct emanation from the right to know which seems to be implicit in the right to free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). Therefore, disclosure of information in regard to the functioning of Government must be the rule and secrecy an exception…" [bhagwati, J. at 67 of Supp.].


Several subsequent decisions have cemented the position of the right to receive information as being a constituent of the right to freedom of speech and expression. They stress the impossibility to exercise the freedom to speech without a right to receive information. Both of them together enable a form of citizen-state engagement that deepens democracy.


This is eloquently stated by Justice PB Sawant speaking for the majority in the Secy Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt of India vs Cricket Association of Bengal case (1995) 2 SCC 161. He states:


"True democracy cannot exist unless all citizens have a right to participate in the affairs of the polity of the country. The right to participate in the affairs of the country is meaningless unless the citizens are well informed on all sides of the issues, in respect of which they are called upon to express their views.


One-sided information, disinformation, misinformation and non-information all equally create an uninformed citizenry which makes democracy a farce when medium of information is monopolised either by a partisan central authority or by private individuals or oligarchic organisations" (at Para 82).


There is a certain antiquity to the cases mentioned above. They are decided before the widespread use of the internet and before the invention of social media platforms. One notices an almost binary categorization between receipt and dissemination of the Article 19(1)(a) right. If a case on blocking may arise, one can quite easily see the court extending them to a third more important layer of the free speech right, termed as the right to interact (or the right to ping).


A right to interact or ping provides a legal basis for a citizen to reasonably convey a message to a public official. This can be the basis of a message of a public official or even suo motu. While such a right would not be a demand for attention, it would be the ability of a user to reach out to their social media profiles and not be blocked by them. It would practically complement the existing right to make and receive speech and deepen participatory democracy.


Even if we disregard the future developments, current precedent prohibits the twitter blocks made by the Hon'ble Minister and the UIDAI. Any block by them or a government entity is illegal as it fails the criteria illustrated below:


1.) Without a basis in law: There has not been any legal order which has been issued for any of the twitter blocks which cites the authorisation of a legislation or an executive order. The amount of labor invested in the exercise of state power to interfere with a constitutional right is immaterial. It is extraneous to determining legality whether the act concerns a click on the mousepad or the knock of a bulldozer.


2.) Is the blocking reasonable: Since there is no published order there is no way to gauge the reasonability of the blocks and they appear prima facia arbitrary. Even if there was an underlying legal provision which could be cited for blocking another persons account, it would be ripe for legal challenge on grounds of reasonableness and proportionality.


Any such provision would be an act of pre-censorship. The only proximate remedy may be injunctory relief through a court order which is sometimes granted in favour of politicians against publications.


3.) Blocking has to be within the grounds of Article 19(2): As stated by Justice RF Nariman in the Shreya Singhal case (2015) 5 SCC 1, speech includes, discussions, advocacy and incitement but, "mere discussion or even advocacy of a particular cause howsoever unpopular is at the heart of Article 19(1)(a).


It is only when such discussion or advocacy reaches the level of incitement that Article 19(2) kicks in". It's quite clear that none of the tweets come nowhere close to any of the Article 19(2) grounds, not even defamation (for more refer to R Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) 6 SCC 632).


It would be unfair to ignore defences that may be cited in favour of blocking. The application of the right to receive information (or the development of a right to interact) can be disputed on the ground that the rights are inapplicable to the personal twitter account of a public functionary.


This would rely on a delineation between a public official's, official twitter account from their private one. This defence may rest upon the description in the bio, the nature of the tweets etc. To my mind such a defence would be fuzzy at best and is is not readily made out from the facts as they stand.


It is also relevant to note that the Knight First Amendment Institute which has filed suit against Donald Trump for blocking United States citizens on twitter has drawn distinct elements from his twitter profile to reason, "President Trump presents the account to the public as one that he operates in his official capacity rather than his personal one." (click to read the complaint).


In conclusion, I would pose another quote from the judgement in the SP Gupta case as an appeal to the Hon'ble Minister for Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises to respect our constitutional values:


"Today it is common ground that democracy has a more positive content and its orchestration has to continuous and pervasive. This means inter alia that people should not only cast intelligent and rational votes but should also exercise sound judgement on the conduct of the Government and the merits of public policies, so that democracy does not remain merely a sporadic exercise in voting but becomes a continuous process of Government – an attitude and habit of mind. But this important role people can fulfil in a democracy only if it is an open Government where there is full access to information in regard to the functioning of the government." [at Para 65].

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

While respecting Apar for his immense knowledge on IT Law of India, I prefer to differ a bit on this topic. As per me, a public servant coming to social media at his leisure time just like any other citizen or netizen, using his personal resources is not an issue at all. The issue arises only when s/he uses public funds and staff, during his official hours, to come to social media and become another unofficial channel of communication, while the official channels are clearly established and in place doing their job. Not only that, they are abusing social media in the name of connecting with citizens to market themselves at the expense of the State.


Check this article and comments for more on this.


As per me, they should not be there on social media in their official capacity at all.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
As per me, a public servant coming to social media at his leisure time just like any other citizen or netizen, using his personal resources is not an issue at all.


Do the "Service & Conduct" Rules allow this ?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @kariraji,


My argument is based on my IT knowledge and common sense, but not based on legal research and case law as done by Apar. To answer your question, frankly I don't know. I learnt that civil servants cannot go on strike as per their service rules. Don't know much about what public servants can or cannot do.


I request the legal experts here to participate and share their views and expertise on this, since Indian IT Law is not evolving the way it should have been on such issues. Recent questions that popped up in my mind related to this are whether there is anyway to measure the time spent by public servants for the citizens; how much of their time is paid by us and how much is their personal; on what basis they spend time on inaugurations/events etc; and whether we can evolve a rating mechanism for public servants which would help us in next elections.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Attached is the relevant "proposed" CCS Amendment dated 18 July 2016.


No idea as to whether they were implemented or not.

CCS Rules amendment.pdf

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

a) Most notable item in this CCS Rules Amendment is to let civil servants use social media also. What makes this change a stupid one is that as long as they don't criticize the govt, they can contribute to or participate in any public media including social media in the bonafide discharge of his duties or otherwise without requiring permission from govt. They being the eyes and ears of governance makes it all the more absurd.


If all the babus are so sensible and responsible, this wouldn't have happened: 357 babus, 24 IAS officers punished over non-performance: DoPT tells Modi | india-news | Hindustan Times


b) I am looking at Third Schedule of Indian Constitution, specifically the Oath of Secrecy part of elected representatives:


Form of oath of secrecy for a Minister for the Union:— “I, A.B., do swear in the name of God that I will not directly or solemnly affirm indirectly communicate or reveal to any person or persons any matter which shall be brought under my consideration or shall become known to me as a Minister for the Union except as may be required for the due discharge of my duties as such Minister.”


Form of oath of secrecy for a Minister for a State:— “I, A.B., do swear in the name of God that I will not directly or solemnly affirm indirectly communicate or reveal to any person or persons any matter which shall be brought under my consideration or shall become known to me as a Minister for the State of ....................except as may be required for the due discharge of my duties as such Minister.


Whether their use of social media confirms to this Oath of Secrecy is one thing I would like to investigate further. In this context, do read Prof Madabhushi Sridhar's article on this: Ministers should take oath of transparency, not of ‘secrecy' | Live Law


c) GoI mandates the use of NIC email for all govt organizations rightly due to security and privacy reasons: https://meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/E-mail_policy_of_Government_of_India_3.pdf


Similar risks exist in indiscriminate use of social media by them. Considering that many of our elected reps are uneducated/semi-educated, this becomes all the more important.


d) India's governance issues or grievances cannot be discussed on servers hosted and under the jurisdiction of some other countries wherein if those countries want, profile of each such social media account can be procured alongwith browser history and other details to gain more insight into the workings of public servants and elected reps. Such info can also be used to hack into govt networks. This is in clear violation of the confidentiality which they have to maintain in their work.


e) Telcos or UIDAI or GSTN telling citizens to send their confidential details via twitter DMs makes twitter (a private organization) a part of their structure, which is a mockery of governance and violation of privacy of citizens' data. Who would stand to take the responsibility if there is a leakage of such data is never defined in such cases.


Over a period of time, I would develop more on this line since GoI wouldn't understand this till China or USA tells it what it has already gathered about Indian governance using social media. It is unfortunate that many Indian citizens have already assumed that use of social media for governance and interaction by people's reps and public servants is perfectly ok and do funny things such as giving their Aadhaar details to UIDAI over twitter and so on. Banking using social media also has similar risks and I would discuss that separately at a later date.

Edited by lawyero

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy