Comments on the draft amendments to the IT Rules (Jan 2023)

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (“MeitY”) proposed amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“Intermediary Guidelines”) on January 17, 2023. The draft amendments aim to regulate online gaming, but also seek to have intermediaries “make reasonable efforts” to cause their users not to upload or share content identified as “fake” or “false” by the Press Information Bureau (“PIB”), any Union Government department or authorised agency (See proposed amendment to Rule 3(1)(b)(v).) The draft amendments in their current form raise certain concerns that we believe merit additional scrutiny.  

CCG submitted comments on the proposed amendment to Rule 3(1)(b)(v), highlighting its key feedback and concerns. The comments were authored by Archit Lohani and Vasudev Devadasan and reviewed by Sachin Dhawan and Jhalak M. Kakkar. Some of the key issues raised in our comments are summarised below.

1. Misinformation, fake, and false, include both unlawful and lawful expression

The proposed amendment does not define the term “misinformation” or provide any guidance on how determinations that content is “fake” or “false” are arrived at. Misinformation can include various forms of content, and experts have identified up to seven subtypes of misinformation such as: imposter content; fabricated content; false connection; false context; manipulated content; misleading content; and satire or parody. Different subtypes of misinformation can cause different types of harm (or no harm at all) and are treated differently under the law. Misinformation or false information thus includes both lawful and unlawful speech (e.g., satire is constitutionally protected speech).  

Within the broad ambit of misinformation, the draft amendment does not provide sufficient guidance to the PIB and government departments on what sort of expression is permissible and what should be restricted. The draft amendment effectively provides them with unfettered discretion to restrict both unlawful and lawful speech. When seeking to regulate misinformation, experts, platforms, and other countries have drawn up detailed definitions that take into consideration factors such as intention, form of sharing, virality, context, impact, public interest value, and public participation value. These definitions recognize the potential multiplicity of context, content, and propagation techniques. In the absence of clarity over what types of content may be restricted based on a clear definition of misinformation, the draft amendment will restrict both unlawful speech and constitutionally protected speech. It will thus constitute an overbroad restriction on free speech.

2. Restricting information solely on the ground that it is “false” is constitutionally impermissible

Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution allows the government to place reasonable restrictions on free speech in the interest of the sovereignty, integrity, or security of India, its friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or contempt of court. The Supreme Court has ruled that these grounds are exhaustive and speech cannot be restricted for reasons beyond Article 19(2), including where the government seeks to block content online. Crucially, Article 19(2) does not permit the State to restrict speech on the ground that it is false. If the government were to restrict “false information that may imminently cause violence”, such a restriction would be permissible as it would relate to the ground of “public order” in Article 19(2). However, if enacted, the draft amendment would restrict online speech solely on the ground that it is declared “false” or “fake” by the Union Government. This amounts to a State restriction on speech for reasons beyond those outlined in Article 19(2), and would thus be unconstitutional. Restrictions on free speech must have a direct connection to the grounds outlined in Article 19(2) and must be a necessary and proportionate restriction on citizens’ rights.

3. Amendment does not adhere with the procedures set out in Section 69A of the IT Act

The Supreme Court upheld Section 69A of the IT Act in Shreya Singhal v Union of India inter alia because it permitted the government blocking of online content only on grounds consistent with Article 19(2) and provided important procedural safeguards, including a notice, hearing, and written order of blocking that can be challenged in court. Therefore, it is evident that the constitutionality of the government’s blocking power over is contingent on the substantive and procedural safeguards provided by Section 69A and the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009. The proposed amendment to the Intermediary Guidelines would permit the Union Government to restrict online speech in a manner that does not adhere to these safeguards. It would permit the blocking of content on grounds beyond those specified in Article 19(2), based on a unilateral determination by the Union Government, without a specific procedure for notice, hearing, or a written order.

4. Alternate methods to counter the spread of misinformation

Any response to misinformation on social media platforms should be based on empirical evidence on the prevalence and harms of misinformation on social media. Thus, as a first step, social media companies should be required to provide greater transparency and facilitate researcher access to data. There are alternative methods to regulate the spread of misinformation that may be more effective and preserve free expression, such as labelling or flagging misinformation. We note that there does not yet exist widespread legal and industry consensus on standards for independent fact-checking, but organisations such as the ‘International Fact-Checking Network’ (IFCN) have laid down certain principles that independent fact-checking organisations should comply with. Having platforms label content pursuant to IFCN fact checks, and even notify users when the content they have interacted with has subsequently been flagged by an IFCN fact checker would provide users with valuable informational context without requiring content removal.

Censoring the Critics: The Need to Balance the Right to Erasure and Freedom of Speech

Clause 13(2)(d) of the Digital Data Protection Bill, 2022 (“DPDP Bill”) provides for the right to erasure of personal data i.e. “…any data about an individual who is identifiable by or in relation to such data”. The said clause states that a data principal has the right to erasure of personal data as per applicable laws and as prescribed. The clause further provides that such erasure of personal data shall take place after the data fiduciary receives a request for erasure. The precondition for erasure is that the personal data must no longer be necessary for the purpose for which it was processed and that it must not be necessary for any legal purpose either. 

This is in many ways a salutary provision. Data principals should have control over their data which includes the right to correct and erase data. This is especially important since it protects individuals from the negative impacts of the widespread availability of personal data on the internet. In today’s digital age, it is easier than ever for personal data to be collected, shared, and used in ways that are harmful or damaging to individuals. The right to erasure aids in countering these negative impacts by giving individuals the power to control their own personal information, and to have it removed from the internet if they choose to do so.

However, this provision can negatively impact several other fundamental rights such as the freedom of speech and right to information, especially when it is abused by powerful figures to silence criticism. For example, if an investigative journalist were to write an article in which they bring to light a government official’s corrupt deeds, the said official would be able to request the data fiduciary to erase such data since they are identifiable by it or are related to it. 

This article will seek to address such concerns in two ways. First, it will delve into the safeguards that can be included in the text of Clause 13(2)(d) to ensure that there is an appropriate balance between free speech and privacy. Second, it will recommend that the arbiter of this balance should be an independent authority and not data fiduciaries. 

(1) Safeguards 

Clause 13(2)(d) is heavily tilted in favor of the privacy interests of the data principal. It does not require data fiduciaries to take into account any other considerations that might have a bearing on the data principal’s erasure request. In order to prevent privacy interests from undermining other rights, the clause should be amended to include various safeguards. 

In particular, the clause should require data fiduciaries to consider the free speech rights of other individuals who might be affected by an erasure request. As indicated earlier, journalists may find it difficult to publish critical commentary on powerful public figures if their work is subject to easy erasure. There are also artistic, literary and research purposes for which personal data might be used by other individuals. These are valid uses of personal data that should not be negated simply because of an erasure request. 

Data fiduciaries can also be made to consider the following factors through subordinate legislation to harmonize free speech and privacy: (a) the role of the data principal in public life, (b) the sensitivity of the personal data sought to be erased, (c) purpose of processing, (d) public nature of data and (e) relevance of the personal data to the public. Incorporating such safeguards will help ensure that data fiduciaries appropriately balance the right to privacy and the right to speech when they receive erasure requests.

Further, a clearly laid out process for grievance redressal should also be codified. Currently, Clause 13(2)(d) does not provide for an appeal mechanism for erasure requests that have been rejected by data fiduciaries. The clause should explicitly provide that in case the data principal wants to contest the rejection of their erasure request, they can file a complaint with the Data Protection Board (DPB). 

(2) Independent Authority 

In addition to lacking sufficient safeguards, Clause 13(2)(d) puts the onus on data fiduciaries to decide the validity of erasure requests. Various jurisdictions including the United Kingdom and Spain along with other states from the European Union use this framework. However, giving decision making power directly to Data Fiduciaries will have a chilling effect on speech.

This is because they will tend to mechanically comply with erasure requests in order to escape liability for non-compliance. Data fiduciaries lack the bandwidth needed to properly assess the validity of erasure claims. They are for the most part private businesses with no obligation or commitment to uphold the rights and freedoms of citizens, especially if doing so will entail the expenditure of significant resources.

Consequently, there is a need for a different framework. Clause 13(2)(d) should be amended to provide for the creation of an independent authority which will decide the validity of erasure requests. Such a body should be staffed with free speech and privacy experts who have the incentive and the capability to balance competing privacy and speech considerations. 

Conclusion 

We can see from the discussion above that the right to erasure provision of the Digital Data Protection Bill, 2022 has failed to strike a sound balance between privacy and free speech. To achieve such a balance, Clause 13(2)(d) should be amended to incorporate various safeguards. Furthermore, an independent authority should be deciding the validity of erasure requests, not data fiduciaries.

NDTV India Ban: A Case of Regulatory Overreach and Insidious Censorship?

By Kasturika Kaumudi 

In a highly contentious move, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (‘MIB’) issued an order banning the telecast of the Hindi news channel ‘NDTV India’ on 9^th November, 2016. The MIB imposed this ‘token penalty’ on NDTV India following the recommendation of an Inter-Ministerial Committee (‘IMC’). The IMC had found the channel liable for revealing “strategically sensitive information” during the coverage of Pathankot terrorist attacks on 4^th January, 2016. The ban has, however, been put on hold by the MIB after the Supreme Court agreed to hear a writ petition filed by NDTV India against the ban.

The order passed by the MIB raises some important legal issues regarding the freedom of speech and expression of the press. Since the news channels are constantly in the race for garnering Television Rating Points, they may sometimes overlook the letter of the law while covering sensitive incidents such as terrorist attacks. In such cases, regulation of the media becomes necessary. However, it is tricky to achieve an optimum balance between the various concerns at play here – the freedom of expression of the press and the people’s right to information, public interest and national security.

In this post, we discuss the background of the NDTV India case and the legal issues arising from it. We also analyze and highlight the effects of governmental regulation of the media and its impact on the freedom of speech and expression of the media.

NDTV Case – A Brief Background:

On January 29, 2016, the MIB had issued a show cause notice to NDTV India alleging that their coverage of the Pathankot military airbase attack had revealed vital information which could be used by terror operators to impede the counter-operations carried by the security forces. The notice also provided details regarding the alleged sensitive information revealed by NDTV India.

In its defence, the channel claimed that the coverage had been “balanced and responsible” and that it was committed to the highest levels of journalism. The channel also stated that the sensitive information allegedly revealed by the channel regarding critical defence assets and location of the terrorists was already available in the public domain at the time of reporting. It was also pointed out that other news channels which had reported on similar information had not been hauled up by the MIB.

However, the MIB, in its order dated January 2, 2016, held that NDTV India’s coverage contravened Rule 6(1)(p) of the Programme and Advertising Code (the ‘Programme Code’ or ‘Code’) issued under the Cable TV Network Rules, 1994 (‘Cable TV Rules’). In exercise of its powers under the Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995 (‘Cable TV Act’) and the Guidelines for Uplinking of Television Channels from India, 2011, the MIB imposed a ‘token penalty’ of a day’s ban on the broadcast of the channel.

Rule 6(1)(p) of the Programme Code:

Rule 6 of the Code sets out the restrictions on the content of programmes and advertisements that can be broadcasted on cable TV. Rule 6(1)(p) and (q) were added recently. Rule 6(1)(p) was introduced after concerns were expressed regarding the real-time coverage of sensitive incidents like the Mumbai and Gurdaspur terror attacks by Indian media. It seeks to prevent disclosure of sensitive information during such live coverage that could act as possible information sources for terror operators.

Rule 6(1)(p) states that: “No programme should be carried in the cable service which contains live coverage of any anti-terrorist operation by security forces, wherein media coverage shall be restricted to periodic briefing by an officer designated by the appropriate Government, till such operation concludes.

Explanation: For the purposes of this clause, it is clarified that “anti-terrorist operation” means such operation undertaken to bring terrorists to justice, which includes all engagements involving justifiable use of force between security forces and terrorists.”

Rule 6(1)(p), though necessary to regulate overzealous media coverage especially during incidents like terrorist attacks, is vague and ambiguous in its phrasing. The term ‘live coverage’ has not been defined in the Cable TV Rules, which makes it difficult to assess its precise meaning and scope. It is unclear whether ‘live coverage’ means only live video feed of the operations or whether live updates through media reporting without visuals will also be considered ‘live coverage’.

Further, the explanation to Rule 6(1)(p) also leaves a lot of room for subjective interpretation. It is unclear whether the expression “to bring terrorists to justice” implies the counter operations should result in fatalities of the terrorists or if the intention is to include the coverage of the trial and conviction of the terrorists, if they were caught alive. If so, it would be highly impractical to bar such coverage under Rule 6(1)(p). The inherent vagueness of this provision gives wide discretion to the governmental authorities to decide whether channels have violated the provisions of the Code.

In this context, it is important to highlight that the Supreme Court had struck down Section 66A of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 in the case of Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India, on the ground of being vague and overboard. The Court had held that the vague and imprecise nature of the provision had a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression. Following from this, it will be interesting to see the stand of the Supreme Court when it tests the constitutionality of Rule 6(1)(p) in light of the strict standards laid down in Shreya Singhal and a spate of other judgments.

Freedom of Speech under Article 19(1)(a)

The right of the media to report news is rooted in the fundamental right to free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Every right has a corresponding duty, and accordingly, the right of the media to report news is accompanied by a duty to function responsibly while reporting information in the interest of the public. The freedom of the media is not absolute or unbridled, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on it under Article 19(2).

In the present case, it can be argued that Rule 6(1)(p) fails to pass the scrutiny of Article 19(2) due to inherent vagueness in the text of the provision. However, the Supreme Court may be reluctant to deem the provision unconstitutional. This reluctance was demonstrated for instance, when the challenge to the constitutionality of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and its attendant guidelines, for containing vague restrictions in the context of certifying films, was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The Censor Board has used the wide discretion available to it for placing unreasonable restrictions while certifying films. If the Supreme Court continues to allow such restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression, the Programme Code is likely to survive judicial scrutiny.

Who should regulate?

Another important issue that the Supreme Court should decide in the present case is whether the MIB had the power to impose such a ban on NDTV India. Under the current regulatory regime, there are no statutory bodies governing media infractions. However, there are self-regulatory bodies like the News Broadcast Standards Authority (NBSA) and the Broadcasting Content Complaint’s Council (BCCC).The NBSA is an independent body set up by the News Broadcasters Association for regulating news and current affairs channels. The BCCC is a complaint redressal system established by the Indian Broadcasting Foundation for the non-news sector and is headed by retired judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts. Both the NBSA and the BCCC regularly look into complaints regarding violations of the Programme Code. These bodies are also authorized to issue advisories, condemn, levy penalties and direct channels to be taken off air if found in contravention of the Programme Code.

The decision of the MIB was predicated on the recommendation made by IMC which comprises solely of government officials with no journalistic or legal background. The MIB should have considered referring the matter to a regulatory body with domain expertise like the NBSA that addresses such matters on a regular basis or at least should have sought their opinion before arriving at its decision.

Way Forward

Freedom of expression of the press and the impartial and fair scrutiny of government actions and policies is imperative for a healthy democracy. Carte blanche powers with the government to regulate the media as stipulated by Cable TV Act without judicial or other oversight mechanisms pose a serious threat to free speech and the independence of the fourth estate.

The imposition of the ban against NDTV India by the MIB under vague and uncertain provisions can be argued as a case of regulatory overreach and insidious censorship. The perils of such executive intrusion on the freedom of the media will have a chilling effect on the freedom of speech. This can impact the vibrancy of the public discourse and the free flow of information and ideas which sustains a democracy. Although the governmental decision has been stayed, the Supreme Court should intervene and clarify the import of the vague terms used in the Programme Code to ensure that the freedom of the press is not compromised and fair and impartial news reporting is not stifled under the threat of executive action.

Kasturika Kaumudi is a Programme Officer with the Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University Delhi

We are not a totalitarian state and cannot be asked to moral police: AG tells SC in the Porn Petition

The Kamlesh Vaswani matter that has asked the Court to direct the Government to block all pornography over the Internet and was used conveniently by the Government to order the disablement of over 850 website last week came up before the bench headed by the Chief Justice today.

Image: https://lmindia2.global.ssl.fastly.net/sites/lovematters_india/files/styles/medium/public/field/image/porn_dos_and_donts.jpg?itok=u2h406Wf

Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, the Attorney General of India represented the Union along with ASG Ms. Pinky Anand. He stated that after the last hearing the petitioners gave a list of 857 websites to the Government, which were blocked by the Department without any verification. Subsequently, the Department verified the list and then asked the Internet Service Providers to only block websites with child porn.

He said that if someone wants to watch porn in the confines of their bedroom how can we interfere. He subsequently stated that there are various kinds of pornography- hard-core, soft, violent porn. At this juncture the Chief Justice quipped ‘Mr. Rohatgi how do you know all this’, to which the AG replied ‘your lordship I have not watched it, but I do plan to, since that is the only way to understand the concerns, moreover my juniors are very tech savy’. He also stated that pornography is a grey area and there are no straight answers.

The AG argued that the geographical frontiers are no frontiers on the Internet and it is a borderless space, and it is very difficult to block anything on it. He said that if we block ten sites another five would pop up with new names at new locations.

He again reiterated that if someone wants to watch this in the privacy of their bedroom, the state cannot be a moral police or enter peoples bedrooms. He added that there are issues of freedom of speech and expression under article 19(1)(a) involved in the case.

The AG stated that the Government is committed to Internet freedom and has launched the ambitious Digital India project, which aims to connect crores of people to the Internet. He added that the MyGov website is becoming the converging point of lots of people to send ideas to the Government and connect with it.

He stated that the petitioner’s argument that the law as it stands today is ineffective and thus unconstitutional is not a valid argument. He cited an example of a case of customs officers in Mumbai who were booked as they were watching porn within a bungalow and the High Court acquitted them, as that is not an offence. He stated that the case is pending before the Supreme Court.

The AG submitted that there is no doubt that child porn has to be banned and the Government will make every effort to do that. However, he added that effective banning on the Internet is very difficult. He also stated that sites these days pick up profiles of the surfer and then the person gets targeted advertising, which the Government cannot block and we are not willing to take up the mantle of moral policing.

He stated that as of today our position is that child porn needs to be banned, beyond that if someone gives us a site which has child porn we will block it or block sites based on court orders as laid down in Shreya Singhal. Beyond that this issue is a larger debate, which can happen in court or outside it in Parliament or in the society.

At this point Mr. Vaswani’s lawyer, Vijay Panjwani stated that a criminal activity is a criminal activity whether in public or in private and transmission of pornography is a criminal activity, which the ISPs are doing. He added that we have the technology to block these sites, parties including people from Banaras Hindu University have filed affidavits in the case stating the same. He said that there is a seven-years imprisonment for anyone transmitting absence content under the Information Technology Act, but we are not even asking for that, we are just asking for the sites to be blocked.

The Attorney General interrupted at this point and stated that today every computer has a child/parental lock and can be used to limit children’s access to such sites and there are other softwares being developed for mobiles and other devices.

He added that the best filter is not to block this content at the gateway but if individuals want they can do it on their devices, as if two adults want to watch it for entertainment we cannot enter their houses. The AG further stated that we cannot become a totalitarian state and there is right to information and entertainment under article 19(1)(a).

Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Senior Advocate being briefed by AoR Mr. Rahul Narayan appearing for the Internet Service Providers Association of India argued that there is a conflict between the two orders issues by the DoT on 31^st July and 4^th August 2015. She added that ISPs are not responsible for the content added by intermediaries.

The first order asked ISPs to disable 857 websites, but the subsequent orders asked us to unblock 857 URLs. She stated that there is a difference between a website and a URL and added that we will block whatever we are asked to under the law and our license agreements but we need to have clear instructions regarding what needs to be blocked. The Government cannot ask us to identify and block content and that is unreasonable burden on the ISPs.

The CJI speaking for the bench stated that we have never passed any order in this case or asked for any blocking. The AG agreed with the Court and stated that since there has been no order by the Court, he will ask the Department of Telecom (DoT) and Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY) to meet with ISAPI and sort out the difficulties.

The AG informed the court that they are working on some self-regulation mechanisms and requested to court to list the matter in October.

(Sarvjeet is a Senior Fellow & Project Manager at the Centre)