Bombay HC: ‘Why have replies to petitions challenging IT rules not been filed?’

The directions were prompted after the petitioners, which include a senior journalist and a digital news portal, submitted that they were living in fear of the rules and hence its operation should be stayed till the court passed its verdict in their petitions.

Expressing surprise at the Centre for not filing replies in any of the petitions filed across various courts in the country challenging the new IT Rules announced by the Ministry of Electronics and Information and Technology in February and implemented in May 2021, the Bombay high court has asked the Centre to file a reply as to why it should not pass interim orders on the petitions.

Bombay High Court

The directions were prompted after the petitioners, which include a senior journalist and a digital news portal, submitted that they were living in fear of the rules and hence its operation should be stayed till the court passed its verdict in their petitions. The court has asked the Centre to file the affidavit by Friday.

A division bench of chief justice Dipankar Datta and justice Girish Kulkarni while hearing the petition filed by senior journalist Nikhil Wagle and digital news portal The Leaflet was informed by senior advocate Darius Khambatta and advocate Abhay Nevagi that the new rules were draconian and gave unbridled access to the privacy of individuals which was against the rights granted to citizens by the Constitution.

On Monday, additional solicitor general Anil Singh for the Union of India informed the bench that the Supreme Court would be hearing an application seeking transfer of the two petitions to the apex court hence the bench should not proceed. However on Tuesday, Singh informed the court that the SC had not taken up hearing of the application.

The bench then referred to the prayer of the petitioners to grant interim stay on the operation of the Rules and sought to know from them as to what would be their stand if their prayer was granted. “If the Rules are held up in the final writ petition and the writ fails subsequently, you cannot use our stay as a shield. During the period of the stay, you must continue to engage in activities with a sword hanging over your head,” remarked the bench.

When the court sought to know from the parties whether a workable solution on the issue was possible if the rules were stayed, the petitioners submitted that they would continue to function as they functioned prior to the introduction of the Rules and would be liable for action in the event of breaching the laws that were prevalent prior to the Rules.

However, ASG Singh requested the court not to pass any interim orders as the Centre’s reply was almost ready and would be filed by Monday.