CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Wednesday issued a notice to the central government over a plea moved by the Digital News Publishers Association, comprising thirteen media outlets, challenging the constitutional validity of the Information Technology Rules 2021.
The first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy admitting the plea tagged the present petition along with a pending plea moved by Carnatic musician TM Krishna, who approached the court a few weeks ago.
The bench also granted interim relief for the association to approach the court if any coercive and arm-twisting action is taken under the rules, particularly under provisions 12, 14 and 16 of the rules.
Senior advocate P S Raman, appearing for the petitioner, contended that two provisions of the rules immediately offended the association.
Particularly Rule 16 which is an omnibus provision giving power to the secretary of the Union ministry of information and broadcasting to block public access to any digital information. Therefore, he wanted the court to pass an interim order restraining the Union from taking any action under the rules pending disposal of the plea, he added.
However, the bench in reply observed that there is no need to issue an omnibus interim order at this stage since no coercive action has been taken against the media outlets yet.
"Since no adverse action has been initiated against the petitioners as of now, no omnibus order made at this stage. However if such provisions are resorted to against the petitioners, petitioners will be at liberty to apply for interim relief," said the bench.
According to the petitioner, Part II of the IT Rules, 2021 (Due diligence by intermediaries and grievance redressal mechanism) is anti-ethical to fundamental rights. By these provisions, private intermediaries are vested with excessive power in shaping the discourse of speech in the country.
In particular, Rules 3(2)(b), 2(1)(d), 4 (2), 4(4) are cited that intermediaries becoming trigger-happy to pull down content by keeping a low threshold for complaints received over the content, self-censorship, lack of opportunities for users to be heard before content is taken down, curtailment of free speech through “automated tools”, infringement of the privacy of users etc. The stringent timelines forced under Part II incentivise intermediaries to over-censor content, thereby curbing free speech, the petitioners added.
The new IT Rules seek to regulate the conduct of entities that do not even fall within the scope of the Information Technology Act of 2000, stressed the petittioners.
The petitioner urged the court to declare the 2021 IT Rules as ultra vires, void and violative of Articles 14 (right to equality before the law and equal protection of laws), 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business) of the Constitution.