The Government of India has refused to disclose any information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act related to its controversial decision to block over 8,000 social media accounts—mostly on X (formerly Twitter)—during Operation Sindoor, as well as to restrict access to several digital news platforms, including The Wire, in early May.
The denials come in response to an RTI application filed on May 12, 2025, by Venkatesh Nayak, Director of the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), who sought official documents justifying the blocking of social media accounts and news websites. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITy) and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MoIB) both declined to provide the requested information, citing Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, which pertains to national security exemptions.
“These responses are disappointing and go against the transparency obligations of the government,” said Nayak. “Both ministries have in the past issued press releases when they ordered blocking of content. Now, even that practice has come to an end. This is a serious setback to public accountability.”
Background: Blocking Spree Under Operation Sindoor
The issue first came to light through media reports in early May when X (formerly Twitter) confirmed that it had received executive orders from the Indian government to block around 8,000 accounts. Many of these accounts allegedly belonged to independent journalists, activists, and critics of the government’s handling of security operations in Jammu and Kashmir. Digital news portals, including The Wire, also confirmed that their platforms were temporarily inaccessible in India.
"Our site was rendered inaccessible without prior notice or explanation. It was later restored, again without any communication,” The Wire said in a public statement.
Despite the major public interest implications, MEITy refused to share the blocking orders, the list of affected accounts, or the legal basis for such mass censorship. In its reply, the ministry cited confidentiality provisions in the Information Technology Act and its associated rules, and claimed exemption under national security clauses of the RTI Act. The reply also included a copy of the IT Rules but not the orders or documents themselves. MEITy transferred the request to the MoIB, which can also issue takedown orders under its jurisdiction.
Ministry of I&B Denies Records Too
The MoIB, however, provided conflicting responses. On June 24, one Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) from the Media Unit Cell-I replied that no records were available related to the RTI request. Another CPIO, in a separate response, cited Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act again—without elaborating which specific grounds under that section were being invoked, a requirement under Indian transparency law.
“This kind of blanket exemption and lack of specificity violates the spirit and the letter of the RTI Act,” Nayak said. “The law is clear that exemptions must be applied narrowly and with reasoning. Simply saying ‘national security’ isn’t enough—especially when past governments have shared at least the fact of such orders.”
Experts Flag Pattern of Digital Opacity
Digital rights experts say this RTI rejection is part of a growing trend of opacity around online censorship in India, where content takedown orders have increased significantly in recent years but are rarely made public.
According to data from the Software Freedom Law Center, India has seen a 600% increase in content blocking orders since 2014, most of them passed without judicial oversight or public disclosure. The Internet Freedom Foundation has long advocated for pre-legislative consultation and publishing of takedown orders, especially when they affect freedom of expression, press freedom, and citizens’ access to information.
Next Steps
Venkatesh Nayak confirmed he will challenge the denials through RTI first appeals and, if necessary, the Central Information Commission (CIC), calling the ministries’ responses “an attempt to cloak executive overreach in secrecy.”
“It is unacceptable that democratic governments resort to secret censorship without explanation or recourse. If these orders are lawful, why are they afraid to make them public?” Nayak asked.
The blocking of journalists’ and media platforms’ accounts—particularly without public disclosure—raises serious constitutional questions under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution, which protect freedom of speech and media independence.
As of now, the full scope of the government’s censorship actions during Operation Sindoor remains unknown. But Nayak’s intervention has put a renewed spotlight on the urgent need for transparency in digital governance, especially when state actions affect fundamental rights.
Comments