…Researched and contributed by Henry George for TDPel Media.
Bombay High Court on Monday, while hearing a petition filed by stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, stated that the amendments to the Information Technology Rules do not seem to offer protection to parody and satire.
Kamra’s petition challenged the amendments and claimed that they could potentially lead to his content being arbitrarily blocked or his social media accounts being suspended or deactivated, thus harming him professionally.
He sought a declaration from the court to declare the amended rules unconstitutional and direct the government to restrain from taking action against any individual under the rules.
The Union government, in an affidavit filed in court, reiterated that the role of the fact check unit is restricted to any business of the Central government and that the fact check unit may only identify fake or false or misleading information and not any opinion, satire, or artistic impression.
The amendments to the Information Technology Rules
On April 6, the Union government promulgated certain amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, including a provision of a fact check unit to identify fake or false or misleading online content related to the government.
As per the amendments, intermediaries such as social media companies will have to act against content identified by the fact check unit or risk losing their “safe harbour” protections under Section 79 of the IT Act.
Safe harbour protections allow intermediaries to avoid liabilities for what third parties post on their websites.
Kamra’s petition and the government’s response
Kamra, in his petition, claimed that the new rules could potentially lead to his content being arbitrarily blocked or his social media accounts being suspended or deactivated, thus harming him professionally.
He sought a declaration from the court to declare the amended rules unconstitutional and direct the government to restrain from taking action against any individual under the rules.
The Union government, in an affidavit filed in court, reiterated that the role of the fact check unit is restricted to any business of the Central government and that the fact check unit may only identify fake or false or misleading information and not any opinion, satire, or artistic impression.
The court will hear the matter further on April 27.
The High Court’s remarks
The High Court bench, while hearing Kamra’s plea, stated that prima facie, the rules do not seem to offer protection to fair criticism of the government like parody and satire.
The Centre had also said that the fact check unit has not yet been notified by the government, and hence, arguments made in the petition regarding its functioning do not have any basis and were “premature and under mere misconceptions of the petitioner.”
However, the bench said the argument that the challenge is “premature” is also incorrect.
Commentary
The Bombay High Court’s observation that the amendments to the Information Technology Rules do not seem to offer protection to parody and satire is significant as it raises concerns about the potential impact of the new rules on freedom of speech and expression.
The fact that the Centre has reiterated that the role of the fact check unit is restricted to any business of the Central government and that the fact check unit may only identify fake or false or misleading information and not any opinion, satire, or artistic impression may not be enough to allay these concerns.
The court’s decision on the matter will be eagerly awaited as it will have far-reaching implications for the online space in India.