Journalist bodies terms clause 7(2) of U.P. government’s Digital Media Policy draconian, seek its withdrawal

They say the provision gave sweeping powers to State government to declare any content, including legitimate journalistic works posted on social media, as “anti-social” or “anti-national”

Updated - August 31, 2024 01:02 am IST

Published - August 30, 2024 09:11 pm IST - NEW DELHI

 Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and assembly speaker Satish Mahana. FIle.

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and assembly speaker Satish Mahana. FIle. | Photo Credit: The Hindu

Journalist bodies on Friday (August 30, 2024) sought from the Uttar Pradesh government an immediate withdrawal of clause 7(2) from its Digital Media Policy-2024, stating that the provision gave sweeping powers to the State government to declare any content, including legitimate journalistic works posted on social media, as “anti-social” or “anti-national”.

“The policy intends to monetarily reward content creators who amplify the State government’s initiatives, schemes and achievements. However, Section 7(2) of the said policy states that legal action by the Director Information of the Uttar Pradesh government will be initiated against content creators if any content is deemed to be ‘anti-national’, ‘anti-social’, ‘paints the government in bad light’, or is ‘created with mala fide intent’,” said a joint statement issued by the Press Club of India.

The statement has been endorsed by the Indian Women’s Press Corps, Press Association, Digipub News India Foundation, and the Software Freedom Law Centre.

“The wide and ambiguous ambit of this clause makes it draconian. It infringes on the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution that encompasses the practice of journalism, which often involves highlighting the failures of the government pertaining to public affairs or in matters of public interest,” it said.

What is Uttar Pradesh’s New Digital Media Policy 2024 | Video Credit: Businessline

Stating that the Supreme Court had while invalidating Section 66A of the Information Technology Act held that the provision left many terms open-ended and undefined, therefore making it void for vagueness, the statement read: “It is the same vagueness and arbitrary nature of Section 7(2) of the policy that makes it unconstitutional”.

‘Conflict of interest’

The organisations said it appeared that the policy was drafted to “reward proxy propagandists but penalise bona fide journalism or legitimate criticism of the government”. “The said clause, therefore, legalises a serious conflict of interest. The government wants to be the judge, jury, and executioner in its own cause in a brazen violation of both the Constitution and the principles of natural justice,” they said.

“There are enough instances of State governments, including the Uttar Pradesh government, invoking draconian laws or misapplying provisions to charge journalists for merely doing legitimate journalism. A free and independent media informs and educates citizens, holds elected representatives and the executive accountable, which is the cornerstone of democracy,” read the statement.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.