DigiPub Moves Karnataka High Court Against Rejection Of X Corp's Challenge To Centre's Content Blocking Powers Through Sahyog Portal

DigiPub News India Foundation and journalist Abhinandan Sekhri have approached the Karnataka High Court in appeal, challenging a single judge order which rejected US-based microblogging platform X Corp's (formerly Twitter) challenge to Centre's content blocking power through Sahyog Portal.DigiPub is a representative collective of digital media news and states that its members rely on intermediary platforms like X, not only to share and distribute their journalistic content but as a medium to express their opinion in the digital age.It apprehends that blocking orders issued by central government officers via Sahyog portal will curtail their right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. It says,"by the impugned order Hon'ble Court has approved the exercise of uncanalised powers by the executive against online speech by the Appellants. Moreover, the appellants will not have the benefit of either a hearing or a reasoned order, which prevents it from presenting its case and from approaching the courts of the land for judicial review respectively. The most egregious of violations is that under the impugned mechanism, the Appellants will not even be notified when the content originated by them is deleted or taken down." For context, vide its judgment dated September 24, a single bench of the High Court held that social media must be regulated and Sahyog Portal, which stood challenged by X Corp, is not an "instrument of censorship", but a facilitation mechanism, intended to streamline communication between authorized agencies and intermediaries.DigiPub had supported X Corp's plea, asserting that if Sahyog Portal continues, 92 media houses which are members of the foundation "putting out responsible reporting", will be left at the mercy of an officer issuing take down orders.The single judge had rejected both X Corp's petition and DigiPub's intervention application.Now, in its appeal, DigiPub says that it is speech propagated by the Appellants which ultimately stands to suffer, if the Sahyog Portal continues. Thus, their fundamental rights are directly at issue. "It is the Appellants and not the intermediaries which are the primary bearers of the fundamental rights implicated by the impugned judgment," it says. It adds that the possibility of losing the safe harbour protection provided under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act will encourage intermediaries to comply even with those takedown orders, which have no basis in law. "Content originators such as the Appellants are the ultimate beneficiaries of the protection afforded by safe harbour. The impugned judgment which permits the loss of safe harbour through a procedure wholly unknown to law therefore directly prejudices the Appellants. Therefore, the impugned judgment enables the implementation of a mechanism which has a chilling effect not only on free speech but also on the process of gathering information which results in news reportage, distribution, and monetisation. This directly prejudices the Appellants' rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution," the appeal states. The plea states that the impugned order has failed to consider that Section 79 is an exemption provision, which does not confer the power to issue take-down requests or engage in content blocking of any other kind. "It fails to adequately or correctly consider the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Shreya Singhal v Union of India, (2015). Further, the impugned Judgment fails to consider and return a finding on the violation of principles of natural justice and Article 14 through the use of Sahyog portal," the appeal adds. It may be noted that X Corp has also filed an appeal challenging the single judge order.

DigiPub Moves Karnataka High Court Against Rejection Of X Corp's Challenge To Centre's Content Blocking Powers Through Sahyog Portal

Mustafa Plumber

Tags