MUMBAI: The Bombay Supreme Court on Thursday questioned how, under the new IT rules, the center could have different standards for print and online when the printed content eventually appears on a website or e-paper.
As the court heard arguments against a rule that would allow the center to set up its own fact check unit (FCU) to weed out online posts about “central government business” that are false or misleading, it also said Doubts about the assumption that it is a truth/false binary in terms of representation. justice Gautam Patel said the assumption of a binary system as traditionally understood in art and literature is a matter of perception. The court said the term “misleading” was the most problematic in determining veracity.
“If we are to continue to be fully informed citizens and fully engaged in a democratic polity, this rule must be abolished,” said Shadan Farasat, attorney for the Editors Guild of India. He said the FCU will restrict the “distribution” of content protected by the fundamental right to freedom of expression.
Highlighting posts affecting the “businesses” of the central government, he said the FCU rule was intended to censor “political speech” which formed “the core, the very genesis of the strictest protection under Article 19(1)” ( a) for freedom of speech. “He said the Supreme Court, as well as US courts, recognize the strictest protections for political debate. It was a day-long hearing before Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale.
Navroz, senior counsel of stand-up comedian KunalKamra servai said the rule creates a chilling effect by encouraging self-censorship and excessive censorship, and denying intermediaries – social media platforms – a safe haven if they disregard “disable” requests, the FCU has found.
He said the rule violated the principles of natural justice because no notice or hearing was given before the FCU determined the content was “false” or “misleading” – already very “vague” determining factors. Seervai said the rule does not require the FCU to issue a reasoned or verbal order and the facilitator therefore does not have access to the material on which it is based.
Judge Patel eventually intervened, saying, “Her affidavit states, ‘We must do this because we are in loco parentis (responsible to the citizens).’ But why are you (the government) only doing this in relation to government business?” Farasat said the Editors Guild’s complaint is that the government will find out what is wrong in posts about its own conduct. “Maximum circulation gets what the government authorizes… The government wants government-sanitized political discourse…conformist speech that is consistent with the government’s view. ”
Farasat added: “The opinion of the government is decisive for the removal of a news or opinion article.”
The bank also asked how government business would be defined under the rules. “Take, for example, the current political climate in Maharashtra… one party is moving to another… is that a government matter?” Judge Patel asked. Farasat replied: “The definition is so broad that it could well be.” “He cited as an example a report on economic growth where economists may disagree with the government’s methodology.
“Debate on public issues must be uninhibited. My rights as a participant democracy doesn’t end with me casting my vote. Article 19(1)(a) includes my right to participate in democracy through discussion by excluding it
debate, it becomes unconstitutional,” Farasat said.
He said the rule does not exist in terms of the “doctrine of proportionality” and is “manifestly arbitrary” in that it bans content in one medium (online) and not the other (print). Precisely for this reason of arbitrariness it must be abolished.
As the court heard arguments against a rule that would allow the center to set up its own fact check unit (FCU) to weed out online posts about “central government business” that are false or misleading, it also said Doubts about the assumption that it is a truth/false binary in terms of representation. justice Gautam Patel said the assumption of a binary system as traditionally understood in art and literature is a matter of perception. The court said the term “misleading” was the most problematic in determining veracity.
“If we are to continue to be fully informed citizens and fully engaged in a democratic polity, this rule must be abolished,” said Shadan Farasat, attorney for the Editors Guild of India. He said the FCU will restrict the “distribution” of content protected by the fundamental right to freedom of expression.
Highlighting posts affecting the “businesses” of the central government, he said the FCU rule was intended to censor “political speech” which formed “the core, the very genesis of the strictest protection under Article 19(1)” ( a) for freedom of speech. “He said the Supreme Court, as well as US courts, recognize the strictest protections for political debate. It was a day-long hearing before Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale.
Navroz, senior counsel of stand-up comedian KunalKamra servai said the rule creates a chilling effect by encouraging self-censorship and excessive censorship, and denying intermediaries – social media platforms – a safe haven if they disregard “disable” requests, the FCU has found.
He said the rule violated the principles of natural justice because no notice or hearing was given before the FCU determined the content was “false” or “misleading” – already very “vague” determining factors. Seervai said the rule does not require the FCU to issue a reasoned or verbal order and the facilitator therefore does not have access to the material on which it is based.
Judge Patel eventually intervened, saying, “Her affidavit states, ‘We must do this because we are in loco parentis (responsible to the citizens).’ But why are you (the government) only doing this in relation to government business?” Farasat said the Editors Guild’s complaint is that the government will find out what is wrong in posts about its own conduct. “Maximum circulation gets what the government authorizes… The government wants government-sanitized political discourse…conformist speech that is consistent with the government’s view. ”
Farasat added: “The opinion of the government is decisive for the removal of a news or opinion article.”
The bank also asked how government business would be defined under the rules. “Take, for example, the current political climate in Maharashtra… one party is moving to another… is that a government matter?” Judge Patel asked. Farasat replied: “The definition is so broad that it could well be.” “He cited as an example a report on economic growth where economists may disagree with the government’s methodology.
“Debate on public issues must be uninhibited. My rights as a participant democracy doesn’t end with me casting my vote. Article 19(1)(a) includes my right to participate in democracy through discussion by excluding it
debate, it becomes unconstitutional,” Farasat said.
He said the rule does not exist in terms of the “doctrine of proportionality” and is “manifestly arbitrary” in that it bans content in one medium (online) and not the other (print). Precisely for this reason of arbitrariness it must be abolished.
“Incurable gamer. Infuriatingly humble coffee specialist. Professional music advocate.”
