E-Paper
Industry pushes back against new IT rules amendments
Several international and domestic industry bodies that represent tech companies have pushed back against the government’ proposal to set up an appeals body to review content takedown, according to their submissions to the government
Several international and domestic industry bodies that represent tech companies have pushed back against the government’ proposal to set up an appeals body to review content takedown, according to their submissions to the government.
The government in June shared the draft Information Technology Rules, 2022, seeking public inputs. Among the key changes in these rules were a proposal to create a new content moderation mechanism with a government-appointed committee having the final say on what should or should not have been taken down.
The Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) said the ability of intermediaries to ensure compliance with policies is limited, stating that moderation in the manner suggested by the new rules may cause them to act as arbiters of content. The body sought a complete deletion of the new clause.
A ministry official earlier told HT that they will study the recommendations, the deadline for which was July 6, and respond.
FICCI in its recommendations states the guidelines appear to impose an obligation on intermediaries to proactively ensure compliance of its terms and conditions and are ultra-vires Section 79 of the Information Technology Act. To “ensure compliance”, intermediaries will have to exercise editorial control and contradict the “actual knowledge” requirement, FICCI said in its response to the ministry of electronics and information technology, according to the submission seen by HT.
Another body, NASSCOM, on the other hand, said that the proposed amendments adopt a one-size-fits-all approach, thereby expecting similar outcomes from highly dissimilar actors.
The U.S.-India Business Council has highlighted the lack of clarity around amendments that raise operational concerns for businesses. They have sought a clarification on the term accessibility and additional measures that are needed to be taken by the intermediaries to satisfy the due diligence obligations.
“The fundamental rights are not enforceable against private companies, and any user who feels wronged by an intermediary’s acts has the option of seeking legal redress to enforce any contract-related responsibility of the intermediary. The basic rights of users protected by the Constitution, such as the right to free speech and expression, are not generally required to be advanced by private organisations under the Constitution,” its submission stated.
Similar to a position taken by the Indian Mobile Association of India (IAMAI), the USIBC recommendation highlighted the unclear and restrictive timeline for a large category of content. “(The) 24 hours for suspension, blocking or removal - seems unrealistic as this would mean taking down or blocking content before an investigation can be completed and would ensure that an affected party does not have any opportunity to counter the action,” it stated.
It added that the restrictive timeline does not seem to have any connection with the urgency of the grievance, unlike existing provisions in the IT Rules which mandate short timelines for specific situations.
“Further, the shortened timeframe for takedowns poses implementation challenges, including insufficient time to adequately scrutinise a user complaint, and a strain on resources for smaller firms,” the submission added.
“We are grateful that Meity has acknowledged some of these concerns and welcomed inputs from industry and the legal community to structure the appellate mechanism, including empowering the industry to set up a self-regulatory body. We also appreciate that during the stakeholder discussion it was clarified that the GAC would be an interim body till such a time when an acceptable solution visà- vis self-regulation is developed by the industry stakeholders.”
