The Bombay High Court on April 11, 2023 directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to file its response in plea by Kunal Kamra, political satirist and stand up artist, challenging the constitutional validity of the Information Technology Amendment Rules, 2023.
A division bench of justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale was hearing senior advocate Navroz Seervai appearing for Mr Kamra. He argued that the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023 do not come within the reasonable restrictions. This is against the interest of the public and is neither reasonable, he had said.
The court granted the Ministry one week to reply on why the IT Amendment Rules, 2023 should not be stayed by April 19 and the matter will be heard on April 21. The court has asked the Ministry to describe the factual background that necessitated the issuance of the amendments in its affidavit.
Internet Freedom Foundation had filed this petition on April 10 that mentions, ‘”The Rules violate the right to freedom of speech and expression as per the Constitution of India do not define the phrases “any business of the Central Government”; “fake or false or misleading”; or “reasonable efforts”. The phrase “any business of the Central Government’‘ is boundless and easily manipulated to include almost any aspect of modern life under a welfare state. The Rules also do not satisfy reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression and violate the right to practice and trade or profession as per Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.”
The new Rules have amended some rules in the 2021 IT Rules as a result of which social media intermediaries are directed to make “reasonable efforts” to protect their users - through rules, regulations. and other policies - not to ‘host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update or share any information’ which is ‘identified as fake or false or misleading by a fact check unit of the central government’ in respect of ‘any business of the central government.’ In effect the new Rules require social media intermediaries to censor or otherwise modify content that relates to the Central government, if a government-mandated fact checking body directs them to do so.
The petition contends, “The amended Rules are manifestly arbitrary, as they entail the central government acting as a judge and prosecutor in its own cause, thus violating one of the most fundamental principles of natural justice. Furthermore, they are over-board, vague and constitute restrictions to freedom of speech and expression.”
