Central government to Bombay High Court: The purpose of the IT Rules modification is to regulate fake news, not to target political satire

 Central government to Bombay High Court: The purpose of the IT Rules modification is to regulate fake news, not to target political satire

The guidelines, according to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, are solely meant to control false news and do not forbid any expression of opinion or criticism of the administration.

During the hearing of the petitions contesting changes to the Information Technology Rules of 2023, the Central government informed the Bombay High Court on Tuesday that humor or satire of any kind directed at any government is always welcome as long as it is not abusive or contains obscenity.

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY)'s Solicitor General, Tushar Mehta, stated that the laws are simply meant to control false news and do not forbid any expression of opinion or critical analysis against the government.

Whether we like it or not, any sarcasm or humor directed towards the political establishment has nothing to do with this rule. Unless the humor crosses lines with inappropriate content like abuse or pornography. In any form, humor satire is always welcome. It can't be forbidden. The administration is solely concerned about the spread of false information and the anonymity of the media. There is not even the slightest chance that any humor, comedy, or satire would fall under this law, Mehta said. 

Stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, the Editors Guild of India, the Association of Indian Magazines, and the New Broadcast and Digital Association filed petitions challenging changes to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023, which were being heard by a division bench of Justices GS Patel and Neela Gokhale.

The Rules call for the creation of fact-checking units (FCUs), and the petitioners have particularly disputed Rule 3's authority for FCUs to identify and tag what they deem to be "false or fake online news" in relation to government actions.

Mehta outlined how the fundamental rights of five different stakeholders—the internet user, the middleman, the recipient, the government, and the general public—have been taken into account when drafting the Rules.

Mehta also made clear that nothing is made illegal or contains any penal provisions in the Rules of 2023.

He clarified that the Rules only govern the content and settle disagreements between the content provider and the harmed party.

The FCUs' criteria state that information pertaining to official government activity must be blatantly fraudulent, phony, and misleading and must not contain any humor or satire.

The SG also described the process through which the FCU was supposed to control the content. 

According to him, the intermediary has three alternatives when FCU flags content: remove it; don't remove it but add a statement that it has been flagged; or ignore the contact from FCU.

The court questioned the need for the change if the government was not going to oblige intermediaries to abide by the FCU's instructions.

It also wanted to know if it could add words to existing clauses by interpreting the law.

There is a wider public interest on the one hand, and a statute with confusing language on the other. Will it ever allow us to include qualifiers that don't actually exist? How can "shall" (stated in rule 3) be given a different color to preserve the safe harbor clause) and how can we read information as fact? Is it legal to interpret clauses in this way? The court posed the query after the session was over.

Mehta argued that if a person felt hurt by the message, they might take the middleman to court, which would ultimately determine whether or not the content was true. 

Mehta continued by saying that the change was necessary because it would prevent intermediaries from using the "safe harbor" defense provided by Section 79 of the Information Technology Act to avoid liability. 

In spite of the intermediary's legal authority to operate, he continued, it should be accountable and exercise due diligence given that it makes millions of dollars.

On Wednesday, Mehta will continue submitting his work.