The Editꩲors Guild of India (EGI) on Friday said ﷽it is "deeply disturbed" by recently amended Information Technology (IT) rules which paved way for a government fact-checking body.
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology notified the amendments in the IT Rules 2021 on Thursday. The EGI claimed that the amendment concerning the fact-checking body would have "a💯dverse implications" for press freedom in the country.
The notified amendments paved way for a body that would flag "fake" content about the government. This body will be a fact-checking unit which, the EGI says, will have sweeping powers to determine what is 'fake or false or misleading' with respect t𝓀o anything related to the Centre and with instructions to interm♐ediaries (Interet Service Providers, and other service providers), to not host such content.
Through ꦺa notification, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Ministry published amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Gꦚuidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
The amendments among other things, made it "obligatory" for intermediaries ꦜsuch as soci🌠al media platforms to "not to publish, share or host fake, false or misleading information" about the Union government. The content that falls into this criteria will be flagged by a government body that is yet to be notified.
Free speech advocates have said that such a fact-checking government body with widespread powers would not be constitutional. Reports say that the fact-checking unit mentioned in the amendment would be carved out of the Press Informatไion Bureau (PIB).
";There is no mention of what will be the governing mechanism for such a fact checking unit, the judicial ♍oversight, the right to appeal, or adherence to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Shreya Singhal v Union of India case, with respect to take down of content or blocking of social media handles. All this is against principle𝓀s of natural justice, and akin to censorship," the Guild said.
The above judgement was given by a two-judge bench of the Supremꦡe Court of India in 2015, on the issue of online speech and intermediary liability in India.
In a separate statement, the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) expressed "deep concerns&q💦uot; ov🍃er the amendments.
The IFF said the amendments "directly and indirectly negatively impact online freedom of💞 speech a🅷nd the right to receive information".
The IFF also questioned the constitutionality of the fact-checking body to be formed by the Ce♏ntre in line with the amendments.
"Assigning any unit of the government such arbitrary🔜, overbroad powers to determine thꦇe authenticity of online content bypasses the principles of natural justice, thus making it an unconstitutional exercise. The notification of these amended rules cement the chilling effect on the fundamental right to speech and expression, particularly on news publishers, journalists, activists, etc," said the IFF.
T🅠he IFF further said that the terms "fake" and "false" remain undefined the amendments are likely to ꩵbe in violation of existing laws and judgements.
"The fact check unit, notified by the Executive, could effectively issue a takedown order to social media platforms and even other intermediaries across the internet stack, potentially bypassing the process statutorily prescribed under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2ܫ000. In addition to circumventing the parliamentary procedures required to expand the scope of the parent legislation, i.e. the IT Act, these notified amendments are also in gross violation of the♐ Hon’ble Supreme Court ruling in Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India (2013) which laid down strict procedures for blocking content. Finally, the vagueness of the undefined terms such as 'fake', 'false', 'misleading' make such overbroad powers further susceptible to misuse," said the IFF.
(With PTI inputs)
