28/09/2022 - Government Policies

Please review 

KEY POINTS

·        The Government’s order asking YouTube to remove 45 videos from 10 channels can be seen as a justified response to growing concern over the propagation of hate and communally sensitive material

·        Section 69A of the IT Act, which empowers the Government to block content, was upheld by the Supreme Court only after it noted that the rules.

·        The latest order invokes the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.

·        It has a procedure by which an inter-departmental committee considers complaints on content and makes recommendations.

·        The Authorised Officer has to take the approval of the Secretary, I&B, before directing the publisher or intermediary to block the relevant content.

·        There is an emergency provision under which the Secretary may order content blocking as an interim measure.

·        All such blocking orders are meant to be examined by a review committee, which ought to meet once in two months, but it is not known whether the panel meets regularly.

·        The Government, which discloses how many videos it has got removed, must also reveal the outcome of such reviews, if any.

·        However, the power to block online content must be used sparingly and with sensitivity towards key freedoms and due process.

India ranks quite high in the list of countries that make regular requests for removal of online content.  It makes restrictions to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under constitution as a fundamental right.

Issues with blocking online content :

* Government can issue restricting orders without any evidence. It undermines Fundamental Rights to free speech. 

* Confidentiality of orders makes it very difficult for users to challenge it in open courts. There is no requirement of giving any reason or hearing opportunity is clear violation of due process. 

* Rules make censorship easy and costless option. It places burden of going to court and gathering evidence on the war.

* Framing of sec.69 A is in such a way that protection of online free speech mainly depends on coverage shown by intermediaries against governments blocking orders.

Way forward:

* Reforms should take place in compliance with prior judgments of SC. In Shreya Singhal case, court allowed challenges to blocking orders in HC.

* Direct blocking should be done only in emergency situations. Government should block access to inform only affected party is given a fair hearings in court.

Pls review

Please review