New IT rules draconian, may gag media, Bombay HC told – Times of India

MUMBAI: The new Information Technology Rules of 2021 are “so wide and so vague” that they will have a “terrible chilling effect” and a “draconian effect” on the people who want to put content on the internet, media, editors and publishers too, contended a petitioner before the Bombay high court on Monday.

For the first time, the I&B ministry seeks to regulate content and free speech beyond the reasonable restrictions permitted under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, submitted senior counsel Darius Khambata, appearing for a digital portal that has raised a constitutional challenge to the validity of the amended rules. He likened it to policing the media.Khambata said “9 out of 10 people may not say anything out of fear” as the two rules empower the I&B ministry to direct deletion and modification of content.
The HC was hearing two public interest litigations (PILs) against the new IT rules that came into effect in May. The second PIL, by Nikhil Wagle, argued by his counsel Abhay Nevgi, said the rules were nothing but an “attempt at mass censorship” and that the rules “are a new way of bypassing the legislature for whatever its reasons.” Both Khambata and Nevgi sought interim orders to stay the new IT rules.
Khambata sought staying of “rules 9, 14 and 16 which induce a chilling effect and (are) anti-free speech”.
Khambata said “the essence of democracy is criticism of public officials. But no, now you do it at your own peril, because these new rules will censure, punish and sanction you if it is not found in favour of an inter-ministerial committee.” Even ‘music reviews’ has been pushed into the rules, he said. “They do not want sting operations too,” he added. “That is the sting in the rules.”
The new rules are called the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021.
Arguing before a bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Girish Kulkarni, Khambata said the main ground was the “indeterminate and wide terms” of the rules by which “regular publishers, authors, editors are all chilled because for anything they can be hauled up”. The rules are “manifestly unreasonable” and go beyond the IT Act of 2000, its aims and provisions. He said the rules define the ‘news and current affairs content’ very widely and bring within its ambit publishers of news and current affairs content and make them liable for any contravention.
Additional solicitor general Anil Singh for the Centre said its transfer petition was likely to come up before the Supreme Court on Tuesday and sought time. The HC observed that it was a month when he had mentioned about the transfer petition before the SC and asked what steps were taken since, but posted the matter for further hearing to August 10. The HC said it will on Tuesday at 2.30 pm hear the Centre’s submissions to oppose the two PILs provided it was not precluded by an SC order by then.
Singh said while only Kerala high court, via a single judge bench, has passed interim orders of no coercive steps, two other high courts, including Madras HC, had issued notice to the Centre and not stayed the rules. He said there are 15 petitions filed all over various HCs against the rules, hence the Centre had sought a transfer of all to the SC.