Mumbai: New Information Technology rules 2021’s are “so pervasive and so vague”, they will have a “terrible chilling effect” and a “harsh effect” on those who want to put content on the internet, media, editors, publishers as well, argued a petitioner in Bombay on Monday. before the High Court. For the first time, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting seeks to regulate content and free speech beyond reasonable restrictions permitted under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, senior advocate Darius Khambata submitted for a digital portal, which has launched a constitutional has raised a challenge to the validity of the new, revised rules. He compared it to the policing of the media and said, “9 out of 10 people can’t say anything out of fear” as two rules direct the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to remove and modify the content.
The HC was hearing two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) against the new IT rules that came into force in May. One is AGIJ Promotion of Nintenonia Media Pvt Lt. and Ashish Khaitan, represented by Khambata. In Nikhil Wagle’s second PIL, his lawyer Abhay Nevgi argued that the rule is nothing but an “attempt to censorship on a large scale” and that the rule is “a new way of bypassing the legislature, whatever the reason.” Khambata and Nevgi sought interim orders to stay the new IT rules.
Khambata sought to stick to “rules 9, 14 and 16, which inspire a chilling effect and anti-free speech.”
Khambata said, “The essence of democracy is criticism of government officials. But no, now you do it at your own risk, as these new rules will condemn, punish and sanction you if the Inter-Ministerial Committee is not found in favour.” Even ‘Sangeet Review’ has been pushed into the rules. , he smiled. “They don’t even want a sting operation,” he said. “It’s a sting in the rules.”
The new rules are called the Information Technology (Intermediate Guidelines and Digital Media Code of Conduct) Rules 2021. They came into force in May 2021.
Arguing before a bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Girish Kulkarni, Khambata said the main premise was the “uncertain and broad terms” of the rules, by which “regular publishers, writers, editors are all chilled because any They may be carried for the thing. define and bring within its ambit the publishers of news and current affairs material and hold them liable for any violation of the rules.
Center’s Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh said that his transfer petition is likely to come before the court. Supreme court Asked for Tuesday. HC observed that it was a month when it had earlier mentioned about the transfer petition scheduled caste and asked what steps have been taken since then, but posted the matter for further hearing on August 10. The HC said it will hear the Centre’s arguments to oppose the two PILs at 2.30 pm on Tuesday, provided it is not stayed by one SC by then.
Singh said only the Kerala High Court through a single-judge bench that passed interim orders without any coercive steps, two other high courts, including the Madras HC, had issued notices to the Center and did not stay the rules. He said as 15 petitions have been filed in various high courts against the rules, the Center had sought transfer of all to the Supreme Court.
The Act provides the power to make rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act. He said that Section 69A gives power to the Center to block access to the public and Section 69A(1) is not beyond reasonable restrictions under the Constitution.
The rules being objected to include Rule 9 which calls for a code of conduct by publishers to be followed and Rule 13 providing for a “monitoring mechanism by the central government” to hear and take action on complaints and grievances. Gives authority to an inter-departmental committee for Second Rule 14 (Inter-Departmental Committee empowers to order removal or modification of material) and Rule 16 on ‘Blocking of information in case of emergency’ “without giving opportunity of being heard” which Khambata said, ” See the rigid nature of powers. And this is completely ignoring Section 69A of the IT Act by the Ministry of I&B, a complete mechanism has already been put in place under the 2009 Rules….It has been in the recent past for free speech and It is the harshest attack on democracy.” “It can never be good for democracy.”
The ‘code of conduct’, said Khambata, “really gives the game away why it has to be brought in” under the rules. He said that they are completely beyond the power to make rules under the IT Act, as they have nothing to do with regulating e-transactions which is the purview of the Act.
They seek to regulate the standards of journalistic conduct and cable television content, which were guidelines press council And cable TV code of conduct to give them mandatory status, he said.
Read from journalistic standards set by Khambata Press Council of India Against ‘stupid commercialisation’, and criticism, accuracy and fairness of public figures, gives guidelines on sting operations, to avoid suggestive guilt, he said, “each one of them as citizens is laudable” but as That the SC has laid down such grounds should never be a ground to restrict freedom of expression. “Who will decide? An inter-ministerial committee?” he asked. Reading the definition of ‘accuracy and fairness’, the press would have to ‘avoid publication of false, lewd, misleading or distorted material … but it would allow the government to intervene.’ It is an open attempt to regulate content which is not regulated under Article 19(1)(a).”
Nevgi said that his challenge was also three parts of the rules. He said that while the ‘dark web’ is not being controlled, the government is trying to regulate social media platforms where innocent people are trying to express themselves. “Whatever is not in the principal Act cannot be presented through the back door,” he said, adding that there was not enough debate on the rules.
The HC was hearing two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) against the new IT rules that came into force in May. One is AGIJ Promotion of Nintenonia Media Pvt Lt. and Ashish Khaitan, represented by Khambata. In Nikhil Wagle’s second PIL, his lawyer Abhay Nevgi argued that the rule is nothing but an “attempt to censorship on a large scale” and that the rule is “a new way of bypassing the legislature, whatever the reason.” Khambata and Nevgi sought interim orders to stay the new IT rules.
Khambata sought to stick to “rules 9, 14 and 16, which inspire a chilling effect and anti-free speech.”
Khambata said, “The essence of democracy is criticism of government officials. But no, now you do it at your own risk, as these new rules will condemn, punish and sanction you if the Inter-Ministerial Committee is not found in favour.” Even ‘Sangeet Review’ has been pushed into the rules. , he smiled. “They don’t even want a sting operation,” he said. “It’s a sting in the rules.”
The new rules are called the Information Technology (Intermediate Guidelines and Digital Media Code of Conduct) Rules 2021. They came into force in May 2021.
Arguing before a bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Girish Kulkarni, Khambata said the main premise was the “uncertain and broad terms” of the rules, by which “regular publishers, writers, editors are all chilled because any They may be carried for the thing. define and bring within its ambit the publishers of news and current affairs material and hold them liable for any violation of the rules.
Center’s Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh said that his transfer petition is likely to come before the court. Supreme court Asked for Tuesday. HC observed that it was a month when it had earlier mentioned about the transfer petition scheduled caste and asked what steps have been taken since then, but posted the matter for further hearing on August 10. The HC said it will hear the Centre’s arguments to oppose the two PILs at 2.30 pm on Tuesday, provided it is not stayed by one SC by then.
Singh said only the Kerala High Court through a single-judge bench that passed interim orders without any coercive steps, two other high courts, including the Madras HC, had issued notices to the Center and did not stay the rules. He said as 15 petitions have been filed in various high courts against the rules, the Center had sought transfer of all to the Supreme Court.
The Act provides the power to make rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act. He said that Section 69A gives power to the Center to block access to the public and Section 69A(1) is not beyond reasonable restrictions under the Constitution.
The rules being objected to include Rule 9 which calls for a code of conduct by publishers to be followed and Rule 13 providing for a “monitoring mechanism by the central government” to hear and take action on complaints and grievances. Gives authority to an inter-departmental committee for Second Rule 14 (Inter-Departmental Committee empowers to order removal or modification of material) and Rule 16 on ‘Blocking of information in case of emergency’ “without giving opportunity of being heard” which Khambata said, ” See the rigid nature of powers. And this is completely ignoring Section 69A of the IT Act by the Ministry of I&B, a complete mechanism has already been put in place under the 2009 Rules….It has been in the recent past for free speech and It is the harshest attack on democracy.” “It can never be good for democracy.”
The ‘code of conduct’, said Khambata, “really gives the game away why it has to be brought in” under the rules. He said that they are completely beyond the power to make rules under the IT Act, as they have nothing to do with regulating e-transactions which is the purview of the Act.
They seek to regulate the standards of journalistic conduct and cable television content, which were guidelines press council And cable TV code of conduct to give them mandatory status, he said.
Read from journalistic standards set by Khambata Press Council of India Against ‘stupid commercialisation’, and criticism, accuracy and fairness of public figures, gives guidelines on sting operations, to avoid suggestive guilt, he said, “each one of them as citizens is laudable” but as That the SC has laid down such grounds should never be a ground to restrict freedom of expression. “Who will decide? An inter-ministerial committee?” he asked. Reading the definition of ‘accuracy and fairness’, the press would have to ‘avoid publication of false, lewd, misleading or distorted material … but it would allow the government to intervene.’ It is an open attempt to regulate content which is not regulated under Article 19(1)(a).”
Nevgi said that his challenge was also three parts of the rules. He said that while the ‘dark web’ is not being controlled, the government is trying to regulate social media platforms where innocent people are trying to express themselves. “Whatever is not in the principal Act cannot be presented through the back door,” he said, adding that there was not enough debate on the rules.
.