CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Central government in a plea moved by the Digital News Publishers Association, comprising 13 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 had 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 new Rules.
Senior advocate PS Raman, appearing for the petitioners, contended that two provisions of the rules immediately offended the association.
“Particularly, Rule 16 is an omnibus provision giving power to the secretary of the Union Ministry of Information & Broadcasting to block public access to any digital information,” he said, while also seeking an interim order, restraining the Union from taking any action under the rules pending disposal of the plea.
Approach, if any coercive action, HC to news outlets
The counsel also argued that the inter-departmental body, under Rule 14 of the new IT Act, appeals against decisions of the self-regulatory body, and is composed entirely of bureaucrats, which is a cause for concern. The self regulatory body, under the new IT rules for media outlets, are to be chaired by a former judge of the Supreme Court or High Court, the counsel said.
The bench, in its reply, observed that there was no need to issue an omnibus interim order at this stage since no coercive action has been taken against media outlets yet. “However, if such provisions are resorted to against the petitioners, the latter 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 IT Act of 2000, stressed the petitioners. The IT Rules, 2021, seek to curb the freedom of speech and expression, as well as the freedom of press by proscribing content based on vague and subjective grounds, which have already been struck down by the Supreme Court, added the petitioners.
What the petitioners want
The petitioners urged court to declare the new rules as ultra vires, void and violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. They said the rules seek to curb the freedom of speech