Strong democratic governments enjoying a clear mandate should not be unduly disturbed by satire, criticism and lampooning, but Indian citizens exercising free speech are increasingly running into censorial rule-making.

A new generation of journalists and satirists has severely discomfited those in power, leading to several orders issued under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and rules to remove critical posts on social media. Some aspects of IT Rules 2021 and attempted tweaks to it in 2023 met with public disapprobation and judicial restraint.

One of them was setting up an official fact-checking outfit, which was struck down by the Bombay High Court. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) has now fired another salvo in the form of further draft amendments to the rules, which, inter alia, seek to expand the oversight mechanism to intermediaries and users who are not “publishers” and post or share news and current affairs content online.

The scope of the Inter-Departmental Committee meant to go into unresolved grievances on content is sought to include matters referred by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry, rather than complaints and grievances alone.

What is more, MEITY wants to create for itself the power to issue clarifications, directions, advisories, standard operating procedures, codes of practice and guidelines, which must be complied with for online platforms to retain safe harbour protection under the IT Act.

Viewed against the backdrop of several recent orders issued by the Union government to social media platforms to take down accounts and content published by critical users, the latest proposals appear to be an expansion of censorship powers.

Historical context and legal concerns

As a crucible of anti-colonial resistance, India’s media has built on a tradition of free speech as a fundamental right, buttressed by post-independence judicial interpretation even in the absence of an explicit Constitutional provision.

Regulation to constrain these freedoms, which technology and social media now extend to every citizen, using the artifice of regulatory fine print is patently regressive. Instances of repressive use of the IT Act against individuals were evident even during UPA rule, leading to the striking down of Sec. 66A of the Act in the Shreya Singhal case.

Governments are required to obtain court orders or issue a notification on the basis of actual knowledge of unlawful content to place curbs on media. Today, an opaque regime of bureaucratic control of media beyond the limits of delegated legislation is sought to be imposed.

The platform X (formerly Twitter) has submitted in court that recent takedown orders issued by the Union government for 12 accounts excessively and disproportionately affect user rights.

India already brings up the rear on press freedom globally at rank 151 and is rated a ‘partly free’ country by Freedom House. In 2018, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said he welcomed criticism, as it strengthens democracy. He should roll back the proposed amendments in that spirit.

© Free Press Journal