Information Technology Rules, 2021: Difference between revisions

{{Short description|2021 rules stemming from section 87 of the Information Technology Act, 2000}}

{{Infobox legislation

During Monsoon session of the [[Parliament of India|Parliament]] in 2018 a [[Motion (parliamentary procedure)|motion]] on “Misuse of social media platforms and spreading of fake news” was admitted. The Minister of Electronics and Information Technology accordingly made a detailed statement of the "resolve of the Government to strengthen the legal framework and make the social media platforms accountable under the law". MeitY then prepared the draft Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules 2018 to replace the 2011 rules.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Comments / suggestions invited on Draft of "The Information Technology [Intermediary Guidelines (Amendment) Rules] 2018|url=https://meity.gov.in/content/comments-suggestions-invited-draft-%E2%80%9C-information-technology-intermediary-guidelines|website=Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Government of India}}</ref> The [[Information Technology Act, 2000]] provided that intermediaries are protected liabilities in some cases.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|title=Analysis Of The Information Technology [Intermediaries Guidelines (Amendment) Rules] 2018 - Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment - India|url=http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/794624/Social+Media/Analysis+Of+The+Information+Technology+Intermediaries+Guidelines+Amendment+Rules+2018|access-date=2020-01-04|website=www.mondaq.com}}</ref> The draft 2018 Rules sought to elaborate the liabilities and responsibilities of the intermediaries in a better way.<ref name=":2" /> Further the draft Rules have been made "in order to prevent spreading of fake news, curb obscene information on the internet, prevent misuse of social-media platforms and to provide security to the users."<ref name=":2" /> The move followed a notice issued to [[WhatsApp]] in July 2018, warning it against helping to spread fake news and look on as a "mute spectator".<ref>{{Cite news|last1=Sonkar|first1=Siddharth|last2=Tarafder|first2=Agnidipto|date=2018-12-26|title=Unclear understanding of 'unlawful content' may end up curbing free speech|work=Business Standard India|url=https://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/unclear-understanding-of-unlawful-content-may-end-up-curbing-free-speech-118122600084_1.html|access-date=2020-01-04}}</ref>

MeitY had invited comments on proposed amendments early in 2019. The amendments were seen by many to "overstep the aforesaid intention sparking concerns of violating free speech and privacy rights of individuals."<ref>{{Cite web|last=Kittane|first=Purushotham|date=15 March 2019|title=Under India's New Intermediary Rules, Fundamental Rights Take Backstage|url=https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/under-indias-new-intermediary-rules-fundamental-rights-take-backstage/|access-date=2020-01-04|website=OHRH, [[Faculty of Law, University of Oxford]]}}</ref> It is seen that "the guidelines suffer with excessive delegation of powers and shift the burden of responsibility of identification of unlawful content from a government/ judiciary to intermediaries."<ref>Consumer Unity and Trust Society (2019) "[https://cuts-ccier.org/pdf/Counter_comments_on_the_submissions_made_to_meity_on_draft_of_the_information_technology_intermediary_guidelines_rules2018.pdf Counter Comments On The Submissions Received By Ministry Of Electronics And Information Technology On ‘The Information Technology Intermediary Guidelines (Amendment) Rules, 2018’]"</ref> A total of 171 comments were received by MeitY; all of the comments were published for counter comments.<ref name=":4">{{Cite web|date=21 October 2019|title=Stricter social media regulations in India to be finalised in three months: MeitY|url=https://www.firstpost.com/tech/news-analysis/stricter-social-media-regulations-in-india-to-be-finalised-in-three-months-meity-7532091.html|access-date=2020-01-04|website=Firstpost Tech2}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Basu|first=Arindrajit|date=19 February 2019|title=Resurrecting the marketplace of ideas|url=https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/resurrecting-the-marketplace-of-ideas/article26313605.ece|access-date=2020-01-04|website=The Hindu @businessline|language=en}}</ref> On 21 October 2019, MeitY asked the court for three months’ time for finalisation of the Intermediary Rules, 2018.<ref name=":4" />

Various issues have been pointed out with the rules such as restriction of [[Freedom of speech|free speech]], requirements such as automatic identification and removal of content, and lack of elaboration on how the five million users will be calculated.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|date=2019-01-30|title=Draft Information Technology [Intermediaries Guidelines (Amendment) Rules] 2018|url=http://prsindia.org/billtrack/draft-information-technology-intermediaries-guidelines-amendment-rules-2018|access-date=2020-01-02|website=[[PRS Legislative Research]]}}</ref> The [[Internet Freedom Foundation]] called these rules, "substantively harmful to our fundamental right".<ref>{{Cite web |date=2019-02-16 |title=MEITY must withdraw proposed changes to the Intermediary rules |url=https://internetfreedom.in/a16022019/ |access-date=2022-07-29 |website=Internet Freedom Foundation}}</ref> Questions raised included if "intermediaries" include online media portals, raised by [[Free Software Movement of India]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/hyderabad/2019/feb/14/do-intermediaries-include-online-media-portals-asks-fsmi-1938603.html|title=Do 'intermediaries' include online media portals, asks FSMI|date=14 February 2019|website=The New Indian Express|access-date=2020-01-04}}</ref> [[Mozilla]] (Firefox), also raised issues with the draft Rules.<ref name=":5" /> [[BSA (The Software Alliance)]] wrote to MeitY to "exclude enterprise cloud service providers" from the scope of the Rules and to remove the filtering obligations.<ref>[[BSA (The Software Alliance)|BSA The Software Alliance]] (31 January 2019). [https://www.bsa.org/files/policy-filings/01312019BSAResponseDraftIntermediaryGuidelinesMeitY.pdf ''<nowiki>BSA Submission on Draft Information Technology [Intermediary Guidelines (Amendment) Rules] 2018</nowiki>'']</ref> [[Centre for Internet and Society (India)|Centre for Internet and Society]] has raised concerns with the draft rules and has asked for changes such as that draft Rule 3(2), Rule 3(4), Rule 3(5), Rule 3(10) be completely deleted.<ref>Gurshabad Grover [[et al]] (31 January 2019). [https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/resources/Intermediary%20Liability%20Rules%202018.pdf <nowiki>Response to the Draft of The Information Technology [Intermediary Guidelines (Amendment) Rules] 2018</nowiki>]. [[Centre for Internet and Society (India)]]</ref> A joint letter written by a group of experts from research, academia, and media, including [[Faisal Farooqui]], [[Karma Paljor]], [[Nikhil Pahwa]], [[Shamnad Basheer]] and professors from IIM Bangalore and IIT Bombay, and organisations including [[Free Software Foundation Tamil Nadu]], [[Free Software Movement of India]], [[Free Software Movement of Karnataka|Free Software Movement Karnataka]] and [[Software Freedom Law Center|Software Freedom Law Centre]], India, to [[MeitY]], pointed out various issues the Rules could cause such as the traceability requirements interfering with the privacy rights of citizens.{{Efn|Say the rights to privacy enshrined in the [[Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors.|Puttaswamy judgement of the Supreme Court]].|name=|group=}}<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.businesstoday.in/top-story/draft-information-technology-rules-experts-write-to-meity-highlight-key-concerns/story/317640.html|title=Draft Information Technology rules: Experts write to MeitY, highlight key concerns|last=Khetarpal|first=Sonal|date=6 February 2019|website=Business Today|access-date=2020-01-04}}</ref>

Amit Khare, Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has called the rules as a "progressive institutional mechanism".<ref>{{Cite web|last=Khare|first=Amit|author-link=Amit Khare|date=2021-03-08|title=Doubts about new IT rules are groundless|url=https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/social-media-it-act-new-rules-modi-govt-control-digital-content-7218741/|access-date=2021-03-09|website=The Indian Express|language=en}}</ref> Immediately following the publication of the rules, a number of platforms advised creators of caution on the basis of the new rules.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Jha|first=Lata|date=2021-03-08|title=OTTs tread cautiously, cancel shows|url=https://www.livemint.com/industry/media/otts-tread-on-cautious-ground-axe-shows-11615188592226.html|access-date=2021-03-09|website=mint|language=en}}</ref> Petitions have been filed challenging the rules with respect to the digital news media.<ref>{{Cite web|date=9 March 2021|others=PTI|title=Delhi HC seeks Centre's response on plea challenging new IT Rules|url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/delhi-hc-seeks-centres-response-on-plea-challenging-new-it-rules/articleshow/81408634.cms|access-date=2021-03-09|website=The Times of India|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|date=9 March 2021|title=Delhi HC Issues Notice in The Wire's Challenge to New IT Rules|url=https://thewire.in/law/delhi-hc-notice-the-wire-petition-challenge-new-it-rules-mk-venu-dhanya-rajendran|access-date=2021-03-09|website=The Wire}}</ref> The Foundation for Independent Journalism editor [[M. K. Venu]] ([[The Wire (India)|''The Wire'']]) and ''[[The News Minute]]'' editor [[Dhanya Rajendran]] filed the first case challenging the rules. ''[[LiveLaw]]'', ''[[The Quint]]'' and ''[[Pratidhvani]]'' have challenged the rules in court.<ref>{{Cite web|date=31 March 2021|title=In another challenge to the new IT Rules 2021, Kannada News Portal 'Pratidhvani' files petition|url=https://www.latestlaws.com/latest-news/in-another-challenge-to-the-new-it-rules-2021-kannada-news-portal-pratidhvani-files-petition/|access-date=2021-05-26|website=Latest Laws|language=en}}</ref> On 25 May 2021, the last day for intermediaries to comply, [[WhatsApp]] sued the Government of India over the rules.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2021-05-26|others=Reuters|title=WhatsApp sues India govt, says new rules mean end to privacy: Report|url=https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/whatsapp-sues-india-govt-says-new-rules-mean-end-to-privacy-report-11621998397369.html|access-date=2021-05-26|website=mint|language=en}}</ref> The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, described the action as "clear act of defiance".<ref>{{Cite web|last=Bhardwaj|first=Deeksha|date=2021-05-26|title=WhatsApp's refusal to comply with new rules a clear act of defiance: Centre|url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/whatsapps-refusal-to-comply-with-new-rules-a-clear-act-of-defiance-centre-101622035573915.html|access-date=2021-05-31|website=Hindustan Times|language=en}}</ref> After a statement made by [[Twitter]], the government released a press statement which said, "Protecting free speech in India is not the prerogative of only a private, for-profit, foreign entity like Twitter, but it is the commitment of the world’s largest democracy and its robust institutions. Twitter’s statement is an attempt to dictate its terms to the world's largest democracy. Through its actions and deliberate defiance, Twitter seeks to undermine India's legal system. Furthermore, Twitter refuses to comply with those very regulations in the Intermediary Guidelines on the basis of which it is claiming a safe harbour protection from any criminal liability in India."<ref>{{Cite news|date=28 May 2021|title=Twitter seeking to undermine India's legal system, government says|work=The Economic Times|url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/twitter-seeking-to-undermine-indias-legal-system-government-says/articleshow/83005190.cms?from=mdr|access-date=2021-05-31}}</ref> On 5 July 2021, the government released a statement claiming Twitter has lost its liability protection concerning user-generated content. This was brought on by Twitter's failure to comply with the new rules with a filing stating that the company failed to appoint executives to govern user content on the platform.<ref>{{Cite news |date=6 July 2021 |title=Twitter loses immunity over user-generated content in India |work=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/india/twitter-loses-immunity-over-user-generated-content-india-2021-07-06/ |access-date=6 July 2021}}</ref> In July 2021, ''[[Press Trust of India]]'' moved the Delhi High Court over the rules.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Suryam|first=Shagun|date=9 July 2021|title="Rules usher in an era of surveillance, fear:" Press Trust of India to Delhi High Court in challenge to Constitutional validity of IT Rules 2021|url=https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/press-trust-of-india-delhi-high-court-challenging-constitutional-validity-it-rules-2021|access-date=2021-07-09|website=Bar and Bench|language=en}}</ref> According to [[Apar Gupta]], "there is judicial consensus that they lack statutory backing and harm freedom of speech and expression.".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Gupta |first=Apar |date=2021-10-01 |title=The IT Rules fail the test of constitutionality |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/the-it-rules-fail-the-the-test-of-constitutionality-7542621/ |access-date=2022-07-29 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref>

{{refend}}

 

[[Category:Law of India]]

[[Category:2018 in Indian law]]