Date : 04/07/2023
Relevance: GS Paper 2: Polity- Fundamental Right
Key Words : ITAct 2000, Peronal data protection bill 2019, Shreya Singhal vs Union of India case, Fake News
Context-
- The recent judgment by the Karnataka High Court concerning Twitter raises concerns about the ramifications of unchecked power and its potential impact on the freedom of speech.
- In a case brought by Twitter against blocking orders issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), the court dismissed Twitter's plea while imposing a significant cost on the social media giant.
Examining India's Digital Speech Regulations
As India celebrates eight years of the Digital India program, it is crucial to assess whether mere connectivity is sufficient to fulfill the democratic promises outlined in the Constitution. Let's examine Twitter's case, the Information Technology (IT) Rules, and related aspects.
Increasing Number of Blocking Orders:
Parliamentary data reveals a significant increase in blocking orders, rising from 471 in 2014 to 9,849 in 2020, indicating a 1991% increase. However, the lack of official transparency prevents a comprehensive qualitative assessment of these orders, highlighting the need for disclosure.
Government and Accounts Takedown:
Twitter has recently withheld accounts and tweets in response to government directives. These takedown orders have affected politicians, journalists, activists, and even global think tanks like Freedom House. Similar situations occurred in relation to content about the farmers' protests and criticism of the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Government's Regulation of Digital Speech:
The Information Technology Act, of 2021, mandates social media platforms to exercise greater diligence in content moderation. Platforms must establish a grievance redressal mechanism and remove unlawful content within specific time frames. Draft amendments propose the inclusion of a Grievance Appellate Committee to provide an additional level of oversight.
Challenges in Government's Regulations:
The IT Act's Section 66A, struck down as unconstitutional in 2015, still continues to be used in several instances. It empowered police to make arrests based on subjective discretion, which could lead to suppressing free speech. Furthermore, concerns have been raised regarding the government's role as an arbiter to suppress speech and the shortened timelines for resolving complaints.
Approach Moving Forward:
To address ongoing criticism and concerns, it is crucial to expedite the passage of the personal data protection bill, 2019. If regulation is deemed necessary, it should be implemented through legislation debated in Parliament, rather than relying solely on executive rule-making powers under Section 69A of the IT Act. Deliberation with stakeholders and public consultation can help shape effective and transparent regulations.
Conclusion:
As Twitter challenges the Indian government's order to block content, it brings attention to the transparency and integrity of digital speech regulations. Balancing free speech, transparency, and accountability is essential for upholding democratic principles in the digital era. Adequate legislation, public consultation, and data protection measures can contribute to a more inclusive and responsible approach to regulating digital speech in India.
Undermining Freedom of Speech:
- The court's ruling undermines the crucial right to free speech and expression, setting a dangerous precedent for the state's ability to remove content without following established procedures.
- This decision reveals a troubling trend of suppressing digital rights and free speech under the pretext of combating false information.
Disregard for Procedural Safeguards:
- The judgment disregards the importance of procedural safeguards outlined in Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, of 2000.
- Despite the Supreme Court's previous affirmation of the constitutionality of this provision in the Shreya Singhal vs Union of India case, emphasizing the need for procedural safeguards, the Karnataka High Court's ruling deviates from this precedent.
- It states that providing notice to users and conveying reasons for blocking content may not be necessary, enabling restrictions on free speech without oversight or recourse for affected parties.
Dismissal of Users' Claims:
- The court's dismissal of users' claims and refusal to acknowledge their right to be heard contradicts the reality of the situation.
- Despite human rights activist Aakar Patel's application to intervene in the case, the court erroneously claimed that no affected users had approached it.
- The court's expectation that Twitter should identify users for notice disregards the challenges posed by the application of the Blocking Rules, often citing confidentiality requirements to deny access to content originators.
Chilling Effect on Free Speech:
- The judgment highlights the chilling effect on free speech caused by the suppression of "fake news" and "misinformation."
- The court's reliance on these grounds, which are not valid restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, demonstrates a concerning trend.
- Disproportionate internet shutdown orders and the use of "fake news" rhetoric to restrict fundamental rights resemble arbitrary invocations of national security.
Violation of Constitutional Principles:
- Moreover, the court's rejection of Twitter's contention that Section 69A only permits the blocking of specific tweets violates the constitutional principle of pre-censorship on freedom of speech.
- The wholesale blocking of Twitter accounts amounts to prior restraint, curbing future speech and expression.
- This form of disproportionate and digital prior restraint has the potential to create a chilling effect on the freedom of speech for online platform users.
Implications for Freedom of Speech:
- The Karnataka High Court's judgment undermines procedural safeguards, erodes principles of natural justice, and grants excessive power to the state in removing unfavorable content.
- In conjunction with the recently amended IT Rules on fact-checking, this ruling poses a significant threat to freedom of speech.
Conclusion:
The Karnataka High Court's ruling on Twitter highlights the concerning implications of unchecked power on the freedom of speech. By disregarding procedural safeguards, dismissing users' claims, relying on invalid grounds for restrictions, and violating constitutional principles, this judgment sets a dangerous precedent that undermines the fundamental right to free speech and expression.
Probable Questions for mains exam -
- Discuss the implications of the Karnataka High Court's ruling on Twitter for the freedom of speech and expression in India. Analyze the key issues raised, such as the disregard for procedural safeguards, dismissal of users' claims, and the chilling effect on free speech. Assess the potential impact of this ruling on digital rights and the balance between state power and individual liberties.(10 Marks, 150 Words)
- Critically evaluate the recent trend of suppressing digital rights and free speech in India under the pretext of combating false information. Examine the Karnataka High Court's judgment on Twitter, highlighting the concerns regarding the erosion of procedural safeguards, violation of constitutional principles, and the potential chilling effect on freedom of speech. Suggest measures to uphold democratic values while addressing the challenges posed by fake news and misinformation in the digital era.(15 Marks, 250 Words)
Source : The Hindu
