The Bombay High Court recently conducted a hearing on petitions challenging the amendment of IT Rules. A detailed report published in the Indian Express mentioned that during the hearing, the court raised several concerns regarding the absence of provisions for a show cause notice by the Fact Check Unit (FCU) and the limited application of the rules. The amended rules grant the government the authority to identify 'fake news' on social media platforms through the FCU.
Surprise at Lack of Show Cause Notice
The court expressed surprise at the absence of a provision for a show cause notice by the Fact Check Unit (FCU) to provide an opportunity for the aggrieved party to justify or defend the content. The amended rules, which allow the government to identify 'fake news' about it on social media platforms, lack an essential safeguard that would enable individuals to present their case.
Automatic Implementation
The court noted that the amended rules impose immediate consequences without providing an opportunity for defense. This lack of due process raises concerns about the fairness and transparency of the rule. The court likened the automatic implementation to a decree, which does not allow for a proper evaluation of the content in question.
Limited Scope of 'In Loco Parentis'
The court questioned the government's claim of acting as 'in loco parentis' (in the place of a parent) while framing the rules. It asked why the government restricts its role to only the 'business of the government.' The court argued that the government should take responsibility for combating fake and misleading information across all domains of social media, given the prevalence of hoaxes and misuse.
Inequality Between Print and Digital Media
Another point raised by the court was the inequality in the application of the rules to print and digital media. The court questioned why the Fact Check Unit (FCU) interferes with content on digital platforms while leaving print content untouched when both are owned by the same organization. This inconsistency calls for an explanation from the government.
Existence of FCU for Print Media
The court also inquired about the existence of the Fact Check Unit (FCU) for print media. If the FCU does not currently exist for print media, the court sought clarification on the government's intention to establish it for digital media. This raised questions regarding the selective targeting of digital platforms while leaving print media without similar scrutiny.
Constitutional Validity Challenged
Several petitions challenging the constitutional validity of specific rules were heard by a division bench of Justices Gautam S Patel and Neela K Gokhale. These petitions were filed by prominent individuals and organizations, including stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, the Editors Guild of India (EGI), News Broadcasters and Digital Association, and the Association of Indian Magazines. The petitioners argued that the amended rules violated several Supreme Court judgments.
Share
Tweet
