E-Paper
Amended IT rules offer no protection to satire, but your affidavit says they do: HC to Centre
The Bombay High Court has stated that the amended IT rules do not offer necessary protection to satire and parody. The court was hearing a petition filed by satirist Kunal Kamra, who challenged two clauses that mandate social media platforms to prevent users from uploading fake news or misleading information. Kamra's petition argues that the rules would curb his ability to post satirical comments on government decisions. The court has posted the hearing on the petition to April 27.
The amended IT rules do not offer necessary protection to satire, parody, the Bomby high court said on Monday while hearing a petition filed by satirist Kunal Kamra, who has challenged two clauses that mandate social media platforms “to make reasonable efforts to stop users from uploading fake news or misleading information on their respective platforms”.
“Your affidavit says you are not affecting parody, satire. But that is not what your rules say. There is no protection,” a division bench of justice Gautam Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale said.
The ministry of electronics and information technology (MeitY) on Monday filed an affidavit in response to Kamra’s plea challenging the validity of clause 3(i)(II)(A) and clause (C) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023, for being ultra vires to section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and violative of the principles enshrined in articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the constitution.
The rules cast an obligation upon intermediaries of making “reasonable efforts to cause users to not publish, display, upload or share information in respect of business of the Central government that is identified as fake, false or misleading by such fact-checking unit of the Central government as the MeitY may specify”.
The petition also sought an HC direction to restrain officers of the Central government from implementing or enforcing the amended rules for intermediaries till the petition was decided.
Additional solicitor general Anil Singh, representing the Centre, requested the bench that the hearing be adjourned for a week as solicitor general Tushar Mehta would appear in the case.
However, senior advocate Navroz Seervai, appearing for Kamra, opposed the request and said as per news reports, the fact-checking unit notification and its constitution was to be announced soon and hence, the HC should grant ad-interim stay.
Seervai contended that though the affidavit filed by MeitY stated that the amended rules would not affect opinions or satire, the amendment did not say so explicitly and hence, there was a chilling effect on the citizens.
“They are saying that the government action cannot be scrutinised by anyone. Can they say so in a democracy? People in this country are scared and they shouldn’t be when the rule of law is in force. My challenge is that articles 19(1)(a) and (g) and 14 of the constitution are violated by the amended rules,” Seervai said and added that there were no reasonable restrictions mentioned in the rules as well.
The bench was further informed that the real motive behind the amended rules was that the Central government did not want any of its actions to be scrutinised and a social media post that did so would be taken down on the pretext of it being false or misleading.
Kamra has filed the petition stating that he was a satirist and posted satirical comments on government decisions and the amended rules would curb his abilities to post comments as they would be termed false and his content or his account could also be blocked arbitrarily.
After hearing both sides, the bench refused to accede to Singh’s request for adjournment by a week and said it had confidence that he could argue the matter himself. It posted hearing on the petition to April 27.