New Delhi:
Even as social media companies such as Twitter and Facebook await clarity about a standard operating procedure for the new social media and intermediary guidelines, a ministry of electronics and information technology official on Monday said that the rules are self-explanatory.
The Information Technology (IntermediaryGuidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 were notified by the Centre on February 25, and came into effect on May 25 ; they are applicable on social media intermediaries such as Twitter and Facebook, and over-the-top (OTT) platforms such as Netflix, Hotstar and Amazon Prime.
“It is very clear that the agency administering a particular law will be the appropriate government authority, whether it is under the state government or the Centre,” the IT ministry official said on condition of anonymity. “There is a need to realise that the law enforcement agencies concerned also seek information from these intermediaries. This touches upon a larger issue and all law enforcement agencies are allowed to ask the companies to act in congruence with Indian law.”
The official added that even as the government works on the SOP, the rules for the removal of unlawful content are already clear. “An intermediary, on whose computer resource the information is stored, hosted or published, upon receiving actual knowledge in the form of an order by a court of competent jurisdiction or on being notified by the Appropriate Government or its agency under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 79 of the Act, shall not host, store or publish any unlawful information, which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force in relation to the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India; security of the State; friendly relations with foreign States; public order; decency or morality; in relation to contempt of court; defamation; incitement to an offence relating to the above, or any information which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force,” states the relevant section in the guidelines.
{{/usCountry}}The official added that even as the government works on the SOP, the rules for the removal of unlawful content are already clear. “An intermediary, on whose computer resource the information is stored, hosted or published, upon receiving actual knowledge in the form of an order by a court of competent jurisdiction or on being notified by the Appropriate Government or its agency under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 79 of the Act, shall not host, store or publish any unlawful information, which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force in relation to the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India; security of the State; friendly relations with foreign States; public order; decency or morality; in relation to contempt of court; defamation; incitement to an offence relating to the above, or any information which is prohibited under any law for the time being in force,” states the relevant section in the guidelines.
{{/usCountry}}At least five industry bodies wrote to the ministry in May, seeing a SOP for better implementation of the rules.
HT reached out to Facebook and Twitter for a response but did not receive any till the time of going to press.
Industry officials, however, claim that there is a lack of clarity when it comes to the definition of ”appropriate government (authority)”. “Does this mean that any local police station can send a takedown request?” asked one industry official who asked not to be named. “The government can always notify a list of appropriate governments and its agencies. That way there will be clarity.”
Apar Gupta, executive director of the Internet Freedom Foundation, an NGO that works in the area of digital rights and liberties said the power to demand removal of unlawful content posted on intermediaries is already abused by police departments under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and there have been instances in the past when it was used to block content even before a first information report was filed.
“The government justification is correct to a reasonable extent; it doesn’t have to define appropriate government , which already includes central and state agencies that operationalise particular areas of work,” he said. “The social media companies, though, to act under the Shreya Singhal judgment, will comply with notices by government bodies that are legally empowered to direct removals. Beyond compliance, they may be seeking ease of coordination.”
The Supreme Court ruled in the landmark Shreya Singhal case of 2015 that online intermediaries would only be obligated to take down content on receiving government or court orders.
The industry official asserted that the social media firms are complying with the new rules even without a SOP. “What they are seeking is clarity so that compliance is practical. As far as takedown orders under section 69 (A) of the IT Act are concerned, there is a set procedure. A notice is issued, followed by a meeting, a discussion and then there is agreement or disagreement over the content,” the official said, adding that the companies only want to know the process in the light of the new rules so “they can comply better”.
Representatives of various social media firms also met minister of state for electronics and information technology Rajeev Chandrashekhar on Thursday to discuss a host of issues. “Twitter remains deeply committed to serving India. I appreciate the conversation with @Rajeev_GoI and look forward to working with @GoI_MeitY on our shared goal of ensuring that the Internet empowers healthy public conversation,” Twitter’s legal, policy and trust & safety lead Vijaya Gadde tweeted after the meeting.