Court recognised danger in IT Rules

The stay ordered by the Bombay High Court on the operation of a part of the new Information Technology Rules of the government is prima facie an acceptance of the contention that these rules are in violation of the right to free speech and expression. The government had notified these rules earlier this year without adequate consultation and even legislative support. The court stayed Clauses 9(1) and 9(3) on both substantive and technical grounds as it felt that they do not conform to the Information Technology Act and are an intrusion into the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1) of the Constitution. The IT Rules had been challenged by some digital news and current affairs publishers and a journalist who had contended that they go beyond the scope of the IT Act and can have a chilling effect on freedom of speech.

The IT (Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, had mandated that digital news media and online publishers should adhere to the "code of ethics" prescribed by the rules. Clause 9(1) prescribes that digital media publishers must adhere to the code, and introduces subjective notions of ‘half-truths’, ‘decency’ and ‘good taste’ into the code. Clause 9(3) proposes to set up a three-tier grievance redressal committee that would enable governments to minutely regulate all media content. The court refrained from staying the operation of Clause 9(2) and Rules 7, 14 and 16, which deal with various matters like penalties for violation of the rules, the constitution of an oversight mechanism, and the power of the government to block access to content. But it gave the petitioners the chance to raise these issues at a later stage if required.

There are widespread apprehensions, especially among publishers, that the rules will give the government control over news and digital platforms and give it the power to take unilateral action against those which are critical of it or are out of favour for some reason. The powers may also be used to deter others and make them fall in line. The court said that with the rules operating in their present form, a news organisation or a journalist exposes himself to punishment even without transgressing the boundaries of reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). It also thought that the rules would make a publisher or a journalist think twice before criticising the administration and so agreed with the petitioners that they can have a chilling effect on freedom of speech. Hopefully, the entire corpus of the rules will be subjected to a through scrutiny by the courts in the interest of protecting the citizens’ freedom of speech and expression.