Senior government officials on Thursday strongly defended the provisions in the Information Technology (IT) Act which have been challenged by social medial platform X in the Karnataka High Court as violative of its fundamental rights as also the Supreme Court’s directions with regard to freedom of speech in the Shreya Singhal case.
In its expansive petition, X has delved into how the Union Government is “eviscerating” Section 69A of the Information Technology Act which is the “sole mechanism” recognised by the Supreme Court to issue blocking orders as it is a “narrowly drawn provision” with safeguards.
‘Censorship portal’
The government, according to X, is wrongly using “template blocking orders” under Section 79(3)(b) to circumvent the safeguards under Section 69A. X gave details of a “censorship portal” where Central and State agencies and local police officers are authorised to issue “unlawful” Section 79(3)(b) information blocking orders which circumvent the safeguards and the processes that have been established in Section 69A by the Supreme Court.
“In 2015, the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal upheld the constitutional validity of Section 69A because Section 69A and the blocking rules prescribe necessary safeguards for the exercise of the information blocking power. These safeguards include an obligation to record reasons in writing; pre-decisional hearings wherein the intermediary and aggrieved user participate; and post-decisional reviews of information blocking directions (Rule 14). In addition, the Supreme Court upheld Section 69A because it related to six of the specified grounds in Article 19(2) of the Constitution, and therefore did not unreasonably restrict the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed in Article 19(1)(a),” the petition read.
X’s argument
X argued that Section 79 exempts intermediaries from liability for third-party content if they satisfy the conditions therein and it does not confer any affirmative power to issue information blocking orders. That power is governed by Section 69A.
Talking to businessline, a senior government official defended the government’s actions. “The government has told X to take down the content. If it takes it down, the company is no longer liable and the person who had put it up originally, continues to be liable. But, if you don’t take it down, alongside the person (origin of content) who put it first, both are liable against the law and would be prosecuted under the Indian law,” said the official.
“We can’t force X to remove the content. Unlike in Section 69A where we can say ‘block the content’, you can’t force them to remove the content. All that we are saying is ‘if you don’t remove it, we will prosecute you’…either prosecute you or file for civil damages – civil or criminal liability, whatever is applicable…now the question is whether that itself is a problem, it is for the courts to decide. And, whether Section 79 (2) or 79 (3) are Constitutional, it is a law, it is under the statute, it is not been questioned so far…we will defend it as valid law because we have to go to the court and defend it as well,” he added.
