Art_19(1)(a)_IT.pdf

right to freedom of speech nd expression

1. Art 19(1)(a) & IT Rules
Md Yusuf Hayath ,
(PhD-Law)
Assistant Professor (Law),
MNLU-Aurangabad.
LLM-Constitutional Law (GM),
UGC-NET’18, AP-RCET’18, AP/TS/KA/TN–SET’18.
FRDP
The Two Facets

3. Article 19(1)(a)
&
Sec 66A of IT Act 2000
Shreya Singhal v UOI WP No. 167 2021
•TheSupremeCourtofIndiainvalidatedSection66Aofthe
InformationTechnologyActof2000initsentirety.
•ThePetitionersarguedthatSection66Awasunconstitutionally
vagueanditsintendedprotectionagainstannoyance,
inconvenience,danger,obstruction,insult,injury,criminal
intimidation,orill-willwerebeyondthescopeofpermissible
restrictionsunderArticle19(2)oftheIndianConstitution.
•TheCourtagreedthattheprohibitionagainstthedissemination
ofinformationbymeansofacomputerresourceora
communicationdeviceintendedtocauseannoyance,
inconvenienceorinsultdidnotfallwithinanyreasonable
exceptionstotheexerciseoftherighttofreedomofexpression.
•Itfurtherfoundthatbecausetheprovisionfailedtodefineterms,
suchasinconvenienceorannoyance,“averylargeamountof
protectedandinnocentspeech”couldbecurtailedandhenceits
sweepwasoverlybroadandvague.

4. Article 19(1)(a)
&
IT Rules 2021
“a fine blend of liberal touch with
gentle self-regulatory
framework”…
-Ministry of Electronics and Information Technologyand the
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting

5. Art 19(1)(a) v IT Rules
•InvokingSection87oftheITAct,2000 andin
supersessionoftheearlierIT(IntermediaryGuidelines)
Rules,2011
•InformationTechnology(IntermediaryGuidelines
andDigitalMediaEthicsCode)Rules,2021
•Object:ruleshavemadeit compulsoryforOTT
platformsand“digitalportals”inIndiatoforma
grievanceredressalsystem
•UnderthenewITrules,largedigitalplatforms-with
over5millionusers-willhavetopublish periodic
compliancereports everymonth,mentioningthe
detailsofcomplaintsreceivedandactiontakenthereon.
•digitalandsocialmediacompanies "illegaland
unconstitutional"andagainstfreedomofthepress.
•Centrelexsuprema"thelawofthelandissupreme
andshouldbeabidedbyeveryone"

6. What are the IT Rules 2021 and why are they
important?
•TheguidelinesunderthenewITRules,2021,saythat
therewillbetwocategories,intermediarywhichcanbe
socialmediaintermediary andsignificantsocial
mediaintermediary.
•Socialmediaplatformswouldneedtoappointa chief
complianceofficer residinginIndiaandanodal
contactpersonwhoshouldresideinIndiafor24X7
coordinationwithlawenforcementagencies.
•Socialmediaplatformswouldalsoneedtoappointa
residentgrievanceofficer whoshallperformthe
grievanceredressalmechanismasindicated.
•Theywouldalsoneedtopublisha monthly
compliancereport disclosingdetailsofcomplaints
receivedandactiontaken,asalsodetailsofcontents
removedpro-actively.

7. Who is an Intermediary?
•Sec2(1)(w)defines‘Intermediary”
"intermediary",withrespecttoanyparticular
electronicrecords,meansanypersonwhoon
behalfofanotherpersonreceives,storesor
transmitsthatrecordorprovidesanyservicewith
respecttothatrecordand includestelecom
serviceproviders,networkserviceproviders,
internetserviceproviders,web-hostingservice
providers,searchengines,onlinepaymentsites,
online-auctionsites,online-marketplacesand
cybercafes;]

8. What Centre says?
•enactmenthadbecomenecessarydueto widespread
concernsaboutissuesrelatingtoincreasedinstances
ofabuseofsocialmediaanddigitalplatforms .
•“Therighttofreedomofspeechandexpressionis
guaranteedundertheIndianConstitution.The
independentjudiciaryandarobustmediaarepartof
India'sdemocraticstructure,"theUnionITMinistry
•Therulesaredesignedtoempowerordinaryusersof
socialmedia.Thevictimsofabuseatsocialmedia
platformsshallhaveaforumforredressaloftheir
grievances.

9. Notable Instances on Explicit Content
•AvinashBajajvDelhi2005 –Baazee.comCase–
onlineauctionwebsiteblockedfordistributing–
CyberPornography.FirstcasetobebookedSec67.
•USvJakeBaker1995– postingofsexuallyexplicit
materialunderapseudonym“JakeBaker”by
portal:‘alt.sex.stories’.
•DelhiBalbharathiCase– postingexplicitmaterialin
http://www.amazing-gents.8m.net/
•KukooWebSeriesSocialMedia

10. Issues
•Canblockawebsite
•CanblockcontentinaSocialMedia
•Traceabilitygovernmentmayrequirethateachmessage
sentthroughWhatsApporanyothersimilarapplicationbe
tiedtotheidentityoftheuser.Whenputinthelargercontext
ofanenvironmentthatisrifewithcybersecuritythreats,an
inconsistentruleoflawandtheabsenceofanysurveillance
oversight.
•Governmentregulatingdigitalnewsmediaportalsaswell
asonlinevideostreamingplatforms “Forinstance,asper
Rule13(4),thisalsonowincludes powersofcensorship
suchasapologyscrolls,butalsoblockingofcontent,”
•ThepurviewoftheITAct,2000,islimited.Itonlyextendsto
theblockingofwebsitesandintermediaryliabilities
frameworkbutdoesnotextendto contentauthorsand
creators.Thisprovidesforthe discretionaryexerciseof
governmentpowersofcensorship overthesesectors.

11. Actions taken by social media giants under IT Rules,
2021
•Facebook:ittookproactiveactionon1.8million
piecesofcontentcontainingadultnudityandsexual
activity.
•Instagramtookactionagainst4.90lakhpiecesof
contentcontainingadultnudityorsexualactivity.It
alsoremoved6.68lakhpieces
•Googleremoved71,132piecesofcontentinMay
andtook83,613removalactionsinJunefollowing
usercomplaints.
•Googlealsoremoved6,34,357piecesofcontentin
Mayand5,26,866inJuneasaresultofautomated
detection.thatwereviolentandhadgraphiccontent.

12. Status of writ petitions filed in different High Courts against IT
Rules, 2021
•AdvocateCharitaV haschallengedtheITRules,2021inthe
KarnatakaHighCourt ,seekingdirectionstotheCentreto
declareRule3(1)(d)andRule7oftheITRules,2021as
"ultraviresandunconstitutional" .
•TheDigitalNewsPublishersAssociation(DNPA)hasalso
challengedtheITRules,2021inthe MadrasHighCourt .
•NewsagencyPTIchallengedtheITRules,2021inthe Delhi
HighCourt.PTIhassaidthattheCentreisattemptingto
regulatedigitalnewsmediathroughtheguidelines.
•LikeNBA(NewsBroadcastersAssociation), LiveLawhasalso
challengedtheactsinthe KeralaHighCourt.Ithasclaimed
thattheITRules,2021areviolativeof Articles14(rightto
equality),Article19(1)(a)(freedomofspeechandexpression),
and19(1)(g)(freedomtopracticeanyprofessionortocarry
onanyoccupation,tradeorbusiness).
•TheLeaflet&SeniorjournalistNikhilWaglehaschallenged
Rule9(1)&(3)intheBombayHighCourt andtermed"them
arbitrary,illegalandagainsttheprincipleofnet
neutrality".

13. •HighCourtofBombayinthematterof Agij
PromotionofNineteenoneaMediaPvt.
Ltd.&Ors.,vs.UnionofIndia [W.P.(L.)
No.14172of2021] ,theITRules,2021
werechallengedonthegroundthattheIT
Rules,2021are "exfaciedraconian,
arbitraryandpatentlyultravires "the
provisionsoftheInformationTechnology
Act,2000("ITAct")andtheprovisionsof
Articles14,19(1)(a)and19(1)(g)ofthe
IndianConstitution,whichguarantees
fundamentalrightstothepetitioners.

14. Interim Orders
•Aug14
th
2021BombayHighCourt 
“peoplewouldbestarvedofthelibertyof
thoughtandfeelsuffocatedtoexercisetheirrightof
freedomofspeechandexpression,iftheyaremadeto
liveinthetimesofcontentregulationontheInternet
withthecodeofethicshangingovertheirheadasthe
SwordofDamocles”

15. Interim Orders (contd…)
Sept16
th
2021MadrasHighCourt

•“TheMadrashighcourtinitsorderreferstothis
testinShreyaSinghal whileconsideringRule
3(1)(b)(x)whichprohibitsanintermediaryfrom
publishinganyinformationthatis “patentlyfalse
anduntrue”,andiswrittenorpublished,withthe
“intenttomisleadorharass” forfinancialgainor
tocauseanyinjury.TheMadrashighcourthas
notedthatattheoutset,theserestrictionsseemto
bebeyondthescopeofArticle19(2).
•Thecourthasalsoacknowledgedtheimpactofthe
rulesonindividualcitizens–observingthat“there
isagenuineapprehension,thatawinkoranod
fromappropriatequartersmayresultinthe
platformbeinginaccessibletoacitizen”.

16. Contemporary Community Standards
Ranjit Udeshi v State of Maharashtra(1962)(Hicklin Test
upheld)
•D.H. Lawrence’s sexually explicit novel -“Lady Chatterley’s
Lover” –banned in UK, USA, CAN & AUS
•Udeshicontentedthatsection292wasinfringinghis
fundamentalrightoffreedomofspeechandexpression
guaranteedunderarticle19(1)(a)oftheConstitution.
•JusticeHidayatullah,heldthatarticle19(1)(a)ofthe
Constitutionissubjecttotherestrictionsenlistedunder
Article19(2).Oneofthegroundsispublicmoralityand
decency.Section292dealingwithobscenematerialsfalls
withinthisexceptiontherebyaddressingtheissueofpublic
decencyandmorality.Therefore,Section292is
constitutional.

17. Post Ranjit Udeshi Developments:
•S. 292 of IPC was amended 1969 inserting a definition of ‘Obscenity’.
•Obscenity under the amended provision:
–lasciviousorappealstotheprurientinterestorifitseffect,or(where
itcomprisestwoormoredistinctitems)theeffectofanyoneofits
items,is,iftakenasawhole,suchastotendtodepraveandcorrupt
personswhoarelikely,havingregardtoallrelevantcircumstances,to
read,seeorhearthemattercontainedorembodiedinit.
•KhushboovKanniamal(2010)–TamilActress–IndiaTodayInterview–
PremaritalSex–violativeofFreedomofSpeech&Expression–SC–
quashedcriminalproceedings–adopted‘ContemporaryCommunity
Standards’–FrameroftheConstitution–Recognizedthefreeflowofidea
andopinionsessentialtosustaincollectivelifeofthecountry.

18. Aveek Sarkar v State of WB (2014)
•1993photographofBorisBeckerandhisfiancée
•OverruledHicklinTest
•SCcourtreliedonRothvUSA
•Onlyiff‘excitinglustfulthoughts’
•SCapplied‘contemporarycommunitystandards’.
•Millerv.California413US15(1973):Thelandmarkjudgmentof
U.S.SupremeCourtonobscenitylawswasMillerv.California.It
laiddowntheso-called ‘MillerTest’or‘contemporary
communityinteresttest’.Thetestisbasedon“theaverage
person,applyingcontemporaryadultcommunitystandards,”
anymatterthat“lacksseriousliterary,artistic,political,or
scientificvalue”and“takenasawhole,appealstoprurient
interests”comeswithinthedomainofobscenity,andthusnot
protectedbytheFirstAmendmenttotheU.S.Constitution.

19. Thank You!
-Yusuf Hayath