As we were discussing in our last article about the comments that have been offered by the Human Rights Council, Geneva- an intergovernmental body within the United Nations (link here- https://worldprivacylaw.com/?p=392_)
The letter raised concerns on content restriction or moderation and in this regard pointed at the Landmark Judgement Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of India (SC 2015) wherein Supreme Court clarified that the Content restrictions may only come from a reasoned order.
The letter mentioned the direction given by the Ministry of Electronic and Information Technology (hereinafter MeitYto Twitter for shutting down over 1,000 accounts as per section 69A of Information Technology Act, 2000 giving reasons as these accounts were “spreading misinformation about farmers’ protest”. The HRC called these new rules as a weapon which may provide the authorities with the power to censor journalists who expose information of public interest and individuals who report on human rights violations in an effort to hold the government accountable. HRC, firmly emphasised that respect to diversity and pluralism and independent information is necessary condition for functioning of any democratic society.
The major concern attracted by HRC was related to media freedom. HRC specifically mentioned part III of the rules which applies to publishers of news and current affairs. According to HRC broad powers given to the executive authorities without judicial review, is likely to unduly restrict the free flow of information, which is protected by article 19 (2) of the ICCPR and showed their serious concern that the rules grant government agency extensive powers to order the blocking of content in the absence of any meaningful safeguard in violation of international standards on freedom of expression.
Finally, in conclusion part HRC concluded that the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 in its present form do not conform with the international human rights norms.
Press Information Bureau dated 20th June 2021- Government of India released its press release and clarified its position as follows-
- The rules are designed to empower ordinary users of social media. The victim of social media platforms shall have a forum for redressal of their grievances.
- New IT rules are becoming necessary due to widespread concerns about issues issues relating to increased instances of abuse of social media and digital platforms (for eg. recruitment of terrorists, circulation of obscene content, spread of disharmony, financial fraud, incitement of violence, public order etc.)
The PIB summary quoted two judgments of the Supreme Court, Prajwala Letter Case 2018, wherein court had directed the government of India to frame necessary guidelines to eliminate the child phonography and related contents in online platforms and other applications.
Facebook Vs. Union of India (2019), in which the court said it is imperative to frame proper regime to find out the persons, institutions, and bodies who were the originators of such content messages. It has become necessary to seek such information from the intermediaries.
The GOI further clarified that India’s democratic credentials are well recognised. The Right of freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed under the constitution. The Independent Judiciary and a robust media are part of the democratic structure.
On traceability (traceability of the first originator) clause GOI went like, new IT rules only limited information. Only when a message already in public circulation which is giving rise to violence, impinging unity and integrity of India, depicting women in bad light, or sexual abuse of child etc. only then the significant social media intermediary will be required to disclose as to who started the message.
References-
- https://twitter.com/ANI/status
- https://pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=1728738
- https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadPublicCommunicationFile?gId=26385
- https://www.communicationstoday.co.in