In a communication dated June 11, three UN Special Rapporteurs raised serious concerns over provisions of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. They claim that these provisions do not meet the standards of rights to privacy and to freedom of expression as per the Articles 17 and 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and that some of the due diligence obligations of intermediaries may infringe upon a ‘’wide range of human rights”.
They claim that the terms such as “ethnically or racially objectionable”, “harmful to child”, “impersonates another person”, etc. are broad and lack clear definitions and may lead to arbitrary application. Nothing could be further from truth. These terms have been very well defined and understood in both Indian and international law and jurisprudence. The Rule 3(1)(b) of the IT Rules specifies these terms clearly as part of a user agreement that the intermediaries must publish. They are aimed at bringing more transparency in how intermediaries deal with the user content and are not violative of the UN’s Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and “Fake News”, Disinformation and Propaganda.
It must also be mentioned that the Rule 3(1)(d) allows for removal of an unlawful content relating to sovereignty and integrity of India, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, etc. only upon an order by a competent court or by the Appropriate Government. This is as per the due process specified by the Supreme Court in the Shreya Singhal Vs Union of India case in 2015. Given the potential of immense harm that can be caused by such unlawful content being freely available online, the time limit of 36 hours for their removal after due process is reasonable. Similarly, the time limit of 72 hours for providing information for investigation in response to lawful requests in writing from government agencies is entirely reasonable. The Rule 3(2) also provides for establishing a grievance redressal mechanism by the intermediaries and resolution of user complaints within 15 days. However, content in the nature of ‘revenge porn’ must be removed within 24 hours. Again, given the potential of immense personal damage that such acts can cause to the dignity of women and children, this time limit is reasonable.
The liability of the Chief Compliance Officer under Rule 4(1) of a significant social media intermediary is not arbitrary. He or she can be held liable in any proceeding only after a due process of law. This has been clearly specified in the rule itself.
The apprehensions about the Rules harming privacy are also misplaced. The Rule 4(2) requires the significant social media intermediaries to provide only the metadata about the first originator of a viral message that may be required for investigation of a serious crime relating to sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, rape, child sexual abuse, etc. that are punishable with a minimum term of five years. This again is after a lawful order is passed by a court or a competent authority and where there is no other less intrusive means of obtaining such information. There is no provision to ask the intermediary to break any encryption to obtain the contents of the message. In fact, the content is provided by the law enforcement agencies to the intermediary. Lawful investigation of crimes cannot be termed as harmful to privacy. Several countries, such as the US, UK and Australia have enacted laws that allow for far more intrusive interception of encrypted messages, including their decryption.
The concerns with regard to media freedom are also misplaced. The section 5 of the UN’s Joint Declaration on Freedom of Expression and “Fake News”, specifically enjoins upon the media outlets to provide for self-regulation at the individual media outlet level and/or at the media sector level. The IT Rules provide for a three-tier system of regulation, in which the government oversight mechanism comes in at the third level only after the first two tiers of self-regulation have failed to produce a resolution. The rules clearly specify the due process for the government oversight mechanism.
India is a vibrant democracy with a long tradition of rule of law and respect for freedom of expression and privacy. The IT Rules aim at empowering the users to enable them to exercise their right to freedom of expression responsibly and prevent the misuse of these platforms for unlawful purposes. The selective interpretation of the provisions of the IT Rules by the UN Rapporteurs is, at best, disingenuous.
(The above article appeared in The Economic Times on July 11, 2021 and is available at https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/et-commentary/unduly-worried-over-new-rules/articleshow/84323812.cms?from=mdr. The views expressed by the author are personal.)
Ideas That Make You Think And Do 