Need for judicial scrutiny of 69A amid Twitter spat

Since content regulation by social media is currently under the Supreme Court’s glare, here’s hoping the sweeping provisions of 69A would be judicially tested during its hearings.

The problem with Section 69A is that secrecy is built into it through its rules. (Photo | AP)

The high-voltage spat between the Centre and microblogging platform Twitter threw up troubling questions on invoking Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. The government wanted hundreds of Twitter handles and messages blocked/deleted in the wake of the ongoing farmers’ agitation on the grounds that they could incite violence and compromise national security.

Of particular concern was a trending inflammatory hashtag accusing Prime Minister Narendra Modi of farmer genocide. Twitter blundered its way through, initially capitulating but unblocking a few hours, later claiming it had part-complied while leaving out media companies, journalists, activists and politicians, as the diktat was against the fundamental right to free speech and expression under the Indian law.

That it revealed its position through a blog post hours before a scheduled meeting with the mandarins of the ministry of electronics and information technology indicated it had strategically opened a safety valve to rustle up support before the anticipated lecturing. Sure enough, it got an earful. Parallels were drawn between its treatment of the Capitol Hill riots and the one at Red Fort, as both were assaults on the symbols of national integrity. And the threat of penal action came with a velvet glove.

However, within the government, there is no unanimity on the action, as BJP leader Subramanian Swamy sarcastically wondered if the coarse language used by the BJP’s IT cell would be similarly purged. While the endgame is yet to arrive, the platform is here to stay as both sides feed off each other’s needs. Amid the fracas, its small desi competitor Koo got noticed.

While a short ban on social media in riot-hit places does help maintain law and order, denying users the right to express themselves on the online platforms without giving them a valid reason in writing to let them get legal remedy, militates against democracy. The problem with Section 69A is that secrecy is built into it through its rules.

Forget informing users in advance, even communications to bar a user or take down a tweet, and the action taken report are bound by its confidentiality clause. Since content regulation by social media is currently under the Supreme Court’s glare, here’s hoping the sweeping provisions of 69A would be judicially tested during its hearings.