Social media rules aren't new, SC had suggested tracing origin of messages inciting violence in 2019

Though WhatsApp challenged the validity of new rules to trace the origin of some messages on judicial order or executive direction, the Supreme Court had in 2019 suggested such a regime to check contents inciting violence, promoting illegal weapons, drugs, pornography and paedophilic activity.

Facebook-owned WhatsApp questioned the validity of the Social Media Intermediary rules 2021 in the Delhi High Court, saying it would break users' right to privacy and end-to-end encryption on its messaging service.

In February this year, the Centre notified the ‘Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules 2021’ for social media companies operating in the country. The rules came into force on Wednesday.

On September 24, 2019, dealing with a separate case of Facebook Inc Vs Union of India, a bench of Justices Deepak Gupta (since retired) and Aniruddha Bose said, "it is imperative that there is a properly framed regime to find out the persons/institutions/bodies who are the originators of such (contentious) content/messages. It may be necessary to get such information from the intermediaries."

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had then told the court that the matter was under active consideration of the Union government.

Read | Give compliance details with new IT rules in 15 days: Centre to digital media, OTT platforms

The court had then noted that there are various messages and content spread or shared on social media, some of which are harmful, and some which can incite violence. There may be messages which are against the sovereignty and integrity of the country; also, there is large amount of pornography and pedophiles use social media in a big way. “Drugs, weapons and other contrabands can be sold through the use of platforms run by the intermediaries," it had said.

For purposes of detection, prevention and investigation of certain criminal activities, it may be necessary to obtain such information. De-encryption and revelation of the identity of the originator may also be necessary, it had said.

However, the court cautioned that de-encryption, if available easily, could defeat the fundamental right of privacy. De-encryption may be done under special circumstances but it must be ensured that the privacy of an individual is not invaded, it had said.

In this context, the law is still at a nascent stage and technology keeps changing every day, if not every hour, the court had said, emphasising that there are various creases which need to be ironed out.

On Wednesday, the government claimed its commitment to protect the privacy of citizens, alongside its responsibility to maintain law and order and national security. It pointed that out the UK, US, Australia, New Zealand etc required social media firms to allow for legal interception.