Context: The government ordered twitter to shut down user accounts connected with the farm protests. This order hampers fundamental rights and also reveals a complex relationship between the government and large platforms.
Background

• The growing digitization of Indian society can be seen in the ongoing farmers’ protest. A new hashtag trends on Twitter for and against the farm laws or protests every day.
• Twitter is quite significant in India despite a lower number of users as compared to Facebook or WhatsApp. It is because Twitter is the default social network for political leaders and foreign governments to make statements.
• The government exercised its powers under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act to block user’s accounts critical of the farm bills. 
• Suspended accounts are in large numbers and include a diverse category of users from farm unions, activists, and press publications.

What are the issues in this decision?
The step is against the rights of the users who are not given reasons for the censorship. Secrecy impacts the public’s right to receive information, which is an essential part of the fundamental right to speech and expression.

• First, the public has incomplete information as the actual text of the legal orders was not disclosed. This is an anti-democratic practice that results in unchecked growth of illogical censorship and also leads to a lack of trust. 
• Second, this outcome has been the failure of the Union executive and Supreme Court. Former framed the process for blocking websites in 2009 and included the secrecy provision; the later failed to examine it. 
• For example, the court stated in Shreya Singhal, that a person whose website or account was blocked under section 69A could approach a court. However, accessing legal remedies is difficult when the direction for blocking is secret.
• Third, several state governments are refusing to publish orders on internet shutdowns even after RTI has been filed. 
• Fourth, due to absence of any prior notice, users are not given an opportunity to present their defense. This is conflicting with the principles of natural justice.  This again goes back to the vagueness and the design faults in the process of how directions under Section 69A are issued.

Suggestion

• In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, the court was judging the constitutional acceptability of the telecommunications shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir. In its judgment, it gave a direction for pro-active publication of all orders for internet shutdowns by the government. 
• Thus, the directions of blocking should be made public in other cases as well.

Road Ahead

• Twitter refused to comply with directions by citing the policy of proportionality. This unconstitutional law is being applied to its maximum capacity. It is creating a sense of confusing that a government formed under the Constitution may be failing to fulfill its duties when other platforms that trade in our data for profit are more ready.