Madras High Court admits plea against contentious IT Rules

Madras High Court admits plea against contentious IT Rules

Court issues notice to Union Government over a plea filed by the apprehensive media outlets of the new IT Rules

The contentious rule announced by the central government has come under the judicial scanner with the Madras High Court issuing notice to the Union of India.

A bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamurthy

admitted a petition against the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 and instructed the Union of India to file its response within a fortnight.

Indian media houses have cried foul after the new rules were announced. It is being seen as a gag order meant to silence those who criticise or question the authorities.

The writ petition was filed by Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) and journalist Mukund Padmanabhan. It has been tagged along with another petition filed by Carnatic singer T.M. Krishna, who has claimed that the IT Rules 2021 violated the Right to Privacy, artistic speech, and ultra vires to the IT Act (2000).

The petition filed by DNPA has challenged the constitutionality of the Rules and alleges that it violates the Fundamental Right of Equality Before Law (Article 14), freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a), and the right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business (Article 19 (1) (g)).

"Issue notice to the respondents (Union of India). A copy of the petition should be forwarded to the office of the learned Additional Solicitor General. The respondents should file their counter-affidavits within a fortnight from the data. The matter will appear three weeks hence," the HC bench said while issuing the direction on 23 June 2021.

The Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) consists of Jagran New Media, DB Corp, Express Network Pvt Ltd, IE Online Media Services Ltd, Lokmat Media Private Ltd, NDTV Convergence Ltd, ABP Network Private Ltd and Times Internet and others.

The DNPA has sought a stay on Rules 12, 14, and 16 of the IT Rules 2021.

"There is sufficient basis for the petitioners' apprehension that coercive and arm-twisting action may be taken under such provisions," the HC said in its order while taking cognisance of their request.

The bench clarified that since no adverse action had been initiated against the petitioners as of now, no omnibus order was made at this stage. "However, if such provisions are resorted to against the petitioners, the petitioners will be at liberty to apply for interim relief in these proceedings," the court said in its order.

Rules 12, 14, and 16 of the IT Rules 2021 have become a bone of contention due to its alleged draconian ambit. DNPA is apprehensive that these might be used in future to silence the digital media and force them to toe the government line.

Rule 12 states that applicable entities under the purview of IT Rules 2021 will have to develop an Oversight Mechanism which would have the following functions:

• Publish a charter for self-regulating bodies, including Codes of Practices for such bodies.

• Develop a Grievance portal for prompt disposal of grievances.

• Establish and refer to an Inter-Departmental Committee for hearing grievances. This committee would comprise officials of various ministries, domain experts, and so on.

Rule 14 stipulates that an authorised officer can identify entities that have published specific content, and ask them to submit clarifications regarding the content before the Inter-Departmental Committee. The committee can decide to block the content based on the clarifications provided.

Rule 16 defines a significant publisher of news and current affairs as those which is operational in India, and "has not less than 5 lakh subscribers or 50 lakh followers on the services of any significant social media intermediary".

The main contentions of the DNPA and Padmanabhan are that among others the IT Rules 2021 seeks to legislate entities that are not within the scope of the Information Technology Act, 2000; curb the freedom of speech and expression and the freedom of the press; promotes surveillance and fear; imposes arbitrary, unjustified, undue, and unfair oversight onto the acts of these media outlets.

DNPA has also stated that the Code of Ethics under the Act is vague and provides a broad scope for misuse by the authorities.