IT Rules 2021 Deter Fake News; No Chilling Effect On Free Speech : Centre Tells Delhi High Court

In an affidavit filed before the Delhi High Court, the Central Government has stated that the IT Rules 2021, notified earlier this year for regulation of online news and social media platforms, do not muffle the right to free speech in the country. It claims that the legislative intent behind the Rules is to deter fake news, bring about self-regulation clubbed with a "co-regulatory" mechanism for grievance redressal of the general public and promotion of the right to information. The Centre has denied the claims that the Rules have been introduced for pre-censorship/ surveillance. It states that the impugned Rules do not contain any provision for monitoring of content of the digital media publishers by the Government or any other body. Rather, it provides an institutional framework to deal with publicly published content, based on public complaints. It highlights that the entire grievance redressal procedure, which has been assailed before various Courts in the country, is only civil in nature, and any decision regarding violation of the Code of Ethics does not lead to any criminal punishment. The development comes by way of a counter affidavit filed by the Central Government in a batch of pleas challenging the 2021 Rules before the Delhi High Court. These pleas have been filed by digital media houses 'The Quint', 'The Wire', 'Alt News' and news agency 'PTI'. The affidavit, running over 150 pages, has been filed though Deputy Secretary of the IT Ministry through Advocate Kirtiman Singh. It is urged therein that the pleas challenging the maintainability of the IT Rules, 2021 in terms of the IT Act, 2000 and Article 19 of Constitutions of India are fallacious and liable to be dismissed, for the following reasons: Grievance redressal mechanism does not have a chilling effect on free speech The Centre claims that the establishment of a grievance redressal mechanism for digital news publishers does not intrude into the freedom of speech and expression of the digital news publishers, but only provides a mechanism of accountability. It is submitted that provisions related to the grievance redressal mechanism are in consonance with the spirit of the public's right to know under the right to free speech and expression. The affidavit states, "The Rules do not provide for any pre-censorship for content. Therefore, news content generally having a short shelf-life, is not impacted by the Rules, which establish a three-tier grievance redressal mechanism for redressal of grievances related to the violation of Code of Ethics." The affidavit further mentions that the decision on whether a particular content is violative of the Code of Ethics is a deliberative one involving the publisher, their representative self-regulating bodies, and the Government. It emphasizes that the publisher has the opportunity to express and defend itself at all the three levels of the grievance redressal mechanism. "The Rules establish a soft-touch co-regulatory mechanism for redressal of public grievances related to the alleged violation of the Code of Ethics, protect the publishers on digital media from criminal proceedings, and therefore do not lead to any chilling effect on the freedom of speech of the publishers." It states that the Petitioners have not produced any evidence before the Government, showing that the Rules have led to a large number of grievances being filed and subsequently appealed by the audience. In fact, it claims that there has not been any significant change in the production of content by news publishers due to the IT Rules. It adds, "Over 1,800 digital media publishers, over 97% of them being publishers of news and current affairs content, have appointed a Grievance Redressal Officer (Level-I), and furnished their information to the Ministry. None of these publishers, who have been able to establish communication with the Ministry, have expressed any difficulty arising out of the number of grievances which are being received/redressed by them." Self-Regulation & Oversight Mechanism The IT Rules provide for a three-tier content regulation mechanism, which includes: Level I - Self-regulation by the applicable entity; Level II — Self-regulation by the self-regulating bodies of the applicable entities; and Level III - Oversight mechanism by the Central Government. With regard to Level I of the grievance redressal mechanism, it is stated that the same requires a digital publisher to redress the grievances relating to the Code of Ethics within a certain time frame. "Such a mechanism is in line with the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Common Cause vs Union of India, and is appropriate from the viewpoint of providing a forum for citizens who may flag concerns related to the content published, and hence ensure speedy clarification, up dation or correction by the publisher itself," the affidavit...

IT Rules 2021 Deter Fake News; No Chilling Effect On Free Speech : Centre Tells Delhi High Court

Akshita Saxena

Tags