Amended IT rules don’t offer necessary protections to satire and parody: HC

The changes to the Information Technology Rules, notified on April 6, relate to information posted online in connection with the central government.

MUMBAI:

“Your affidavit says you are not affecting parody, satire. But that is not what your rules say. There is no protection,” a division bench of justice Gautam Patel and justice Neela Gokhale said on Monday. (HT Photo)

The amended IT rules do not offer necessary protections to satire and parody, the Bombay high court said on Monday, while hearing a petition filed by comedian Kunal Kamra who has challenged two clauses that mandate social media platforms to take down information deemed as fake news by a body that the government will appoint in order to maintain legal immunity for the posts of their users.

The changes to the Information Technology Rules, notified on April 6, relate to information posted online in connection with the central government. Experts and activists regard it to be overbroad in nature, and a potential threat to free speech.

“Your affidavit says you are not affecting parody, satire. But that is not what your rules say. There is no protection,” a division bench of justice Gautam Patel and justice Neela Gokhale said on Monday.

The ministry of electronics and information technology (Meity) on Monday filed an affidavit in response to Kamra’s plea, which challenged the validity of certain clauses, including one that says intermediaries – companies like Twitter and Facebook – must make “reasonable efforts to cause users to not publish, display, upload or share information in respect of business of the central government that is identified as fake, false or misleading by such fact-checking unit of the central government as the Meity may specify”.

The petition also sought an HC direction to restrain officers of the central government from implementing or enforcing the amended rules for intermediaries till the petition was decided.

Additional solicitor general Anil Singh, representing the Centre, requested the bench the hearing be adjourned for a week as solicitor general Tushar Mehta would appear in the case.

But, senior advocate Navroz Seervai, appearing for Kamra, opposed the request and said as per news reports, the fact-checking unit notification and its constitution was to be announced soon and hence, the HC should grant a stay.

Seervai contended that though the affidavit filed by Meity stated that the amended rules would not affect opinions or satire, the amendment did not say so explicitly and hence, there was a chilling effect on the citizens.

“They are saying that the government action cannot be scrutinised by anyone. Can they say so in a democracy? People in this country are scared and they shouldn’t be when the rule of law is in force. My challenge is that articles 19(1)(a) and (g) and 14 of the constitution are violated by the amended rules,” Seervai said, adding there were no reasonable restrictions mentioned in the rules as well.

Kamra has filed the petition stating that he was a satirist and posted satirical comments on government decisions and the amended rules would curb his abilities to post comments as they would be termed false and his content or his account could also be blocked arbitrarily.

After hearing both sides, the bench refused to accede to Singh’s request for adjournment by a week and said it had confidence that he could argue the matter himself. It posted hearing on the petition to April 27.

The day the new rule was notified, government officials defended it as a crucial safeguard against misinformation.