IT Rules 2021 Empower Ordinary Users Of Digital Platforms To Seek Redressal: Centre Tells Madras High Court

The Central government represented by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) has filed two counter-affidavits before the Madras High Court in response to the batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules, 2021).Petitions have been filed by acclaimed Carnatic vocalist and Ramon Magsaysay awardee TM Krishna, Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA) as well as journalist Mukund Padmanabhan, challenging the constitutionality of the IT Rules, and seeking a declaration of the same as "ultra vires, void and violative of Articles 14, Article 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India". On Friday, Senior Advocate P.S Raman informed the Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice P.D Audikesavalu that the Centre had filed an 'exhaustive' 120 page counter affidavit and accordingly sought the Court's leave to file a reply. During earlier hearings, the Bench had expressed strong reservations against the dealt in filing the counter affidavit by the Union. "Learned Additional Solicitor General should explain why appropriate measures should not be taken against those responsible for not filing the counter-affidavit on behalf of the Union despite the previous directions", the Bench had observed. Justifying such a delay, the Union mentioned that the delay could be attributed to the fact that various petitions have been filed before different High Courts challenging the IT Rules 2021 and that these challenges were not 'streamlined or uniform'. While some of these petitions have challenged Part II of the IT Rules, relating to 'Intermediary due diligence', others have assailed Part III of the Rules relating to 'Digital Media and Code of Ethics', it was noted. In the counter affidavit, the Union further submitted that all the cases filed before the High Courts 'commonly seek to declare the IT Rules 2021 ultra vires the Constitution and the IT Act. 2000'. In all, there are nineteen writ petitions at present, and each emanate out of a unique set of circumstances, it was further informed. "Therefore, there was an overbearing need for the Union to present a consistent, uniform stand before all High Courts. The need to ensure such consistency led to the delay in finalising the affidavit. The delay was only on account of the need to ensure consistency of the pleadings of the Union and the delay was consequently not wilful nor was it wanton ... The delay is solely attributable to the need to ensure consistent defence to the multiplicity of the proceedings before various High Courts. It was not malicious or intentional", the counter affidavit further stated. The IT Ministry (MeITY) has filed an affidavit as regards Part I & 2 of the Rules and Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has filed the affidavit as regards Part 3.The Centre averred that the IT Rules, 2021 were enacted within the scope of the Information Technology Act (IT Act), 2000 and that they do not violate the fundamental rights of citizens. "The Rules have been framed under unambiguous provision of law and it has been constituted after making adequate consultations and taking into account the necessary social and technological issues that necessitated regulation. Therefore, the rules do not suffer from any legal or constitutional infirmity", the counter affidavit further stated. Averments in the counter It was explained that the IT Rules 2021 had been introduced bona fide, for the benefit of the public and its intention is to ensure adequate regulation of digital and intermediary platforms. Thus, these rules were issued in public interest and to ensure the regulation of unlawful content, the counter stated. Enumerating upon the rationale and justification for implementation of the Rules, the counter stated that the 'Rules substantially empower the ordinary users of digital platforms to seek redressal for their grievance and command accountability in the case of infringement of their rights' It was further averred that the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution (includes the freedom of speech and expression) are not absolute and are thus subject to restrictions under Article 19 (2) and (6) of the Constitution. Other 'significant reasons' for enacting the IT Rules included: (i) significant expansion of online intermediary ecosystem; (ii) growth of online social media platforms and their influencing capabilities; (iii) international developments in social regulation; (iv) compelling need to have a framework to deal with messages that have become viral and resulted in riots, mob lynching, other heinous crimes including those concerning the dignity of women and sexual abuse of children; (iv) alignment of requirements of the law enforcement agencies and other appropriate government or their agencies; (v)...

IT Rules 2021 Empower Ordinary Users Of Digital Platforms To Seek Redressal: Centre Tells Madras High Court

Aaratrika Bhaumik

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

IT Rules 2021 Empower Ordinary Users Of Digital Platforms To Seek Redressal: Centre Tells Madras High Court

Aaratrika Bhaumik

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers