The Bombay High Court on Tuesday directed Union government to file its response to a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Information Technology Amendment Rules, 2023.
A division bench of justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale was hearing a plea by stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra. It directed the Centre to file an affidavit stating its stand by April 19.
On April 06, 2023, India introduced new amendments to the Information Technology Act that states a fact check unit based solely on the discretion of the Union Government will be empowered to identify fake or false or misleading online content.
Intermediaries — social media companies and service providers — are bound to take action on government direction. The rules dictate social media platforms “make reasonable efforts” to not “publish, share or host” any information relating to the government that is identified as “fake, false or misleading” by a government-appointed fact-checking unit.
The law has alarmed journalists and civic groups in India.
Raising concerns, the New Delhi-based Internet Freedom Foundation said, “Assigning any unit of the government such arbitrary, overbroad powers to determine the authenticity of online content bypasses the principles of natural justice, thus making it an unconstitutional exercise.”
IFF provided legal assistance to Kamra in the case.
“These amendments will have alarming consequences for the right to freedom of expression by making the Union Government the final arbiter of free speech,” IFF wrote on Twitter explaining how the law is unconstitutional.
Advocate Navroz Seervai, appearing for Kamra, argued that the amendments violate free speech under Article 19 of the Constitution and will have a chilling effect.
Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh, appearing for the Union government, told the court that the amendments have not yet come into force and sought time to file the response, according to Bar and Bench.
The petition contends, “The amended Rules are manifestly arbitrary, as they entail the central government acting as a judge and prosecutor in its own cause, thus violating one of the most fundamental principles of natural justice. Furthermore, they are over-board, vague and constitute restrictions to freedom of speech and expression.”
