MUMBAI: The Bombay HC has ruled that if the effect of a rule or law is unconstitutional, it has to go.
Senior counsel Navroz Seervai appearing for stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra had made daylong submissions to argue that the rule for setting up fact check units (FCUs) is "insidious" and would have a chilling effect on free speech at a time when social media is all pervasive.Seervai, citing judgments of the Supreme Court and US Judges, said, "it is not open for the Centre to say the challenge raised (to FCU) is premature...it is a loss of statutory safe harbour-available worldwide-for intermediaries and a takedown (of content) is inevitable." The amendment by the Centre is as if "Rome has spoken...
There is to be no debate on it," said Seervai.
He argued that the rule denies safe harbour to social media platforms and other digital intermediaries unless they play ball with the government.
He added, "Whichever government."It "strikes at the heart of the use of internet for purpose of social media," said Seervai.
"It is a way of saying.
My way or the highway." He said, "False speech is as much speech as truthful speech and is protected and any attack on that is ultra vires of constitutional mandate.'' The intermediaries, essentially commercial organisations, are "least concerned beyond a point of what they host." "It is in their interest not to cross swords with the government" and may end up doing self-censorship, he added.The HC noted that no petitions were filed by intermediaries.
"Exactly.
It stands out that neither have they bothered or dared to file a petition," said Seervai.
He said the rule would fall foul of Article 14 for discrimination, and on principles of natural justice it seeks to make the government a "judge in its own cause"; he said the Centre is silent on this aspect in its reply.
Justice Patel orally said, "This (such rule) would not have been necessary in days of print." He added, "The government cannot do without the internet.
It is the way they transact business," and added, "it is truly the fear of the unknown."Kamra was the first to challenge the amendment made to Rule 3 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, amended this April, under the IT Act.Later two more challenges were filed by the Editors' Guild of India and Association of Indian Magazines and an intervention plea was filed by the New Broadcast and Digital Association representing 27 television channels who concurred with Kamra that the rule violates constitutional principles and fundamental rights.
Senior counsel Arvind Datar for the channels said in the absence of defining what is false, fake or misleading, the law has to be struck down as 'free speech' is so wide it can't be taken away by Parliament.
"There would need to be a Constitutional amendment" for such a curb, he said.Seervai said the government is not intended to a cover under Article 19 (2) (reasonable restrictions on free speech) for curtailing rights of citizens under Article 19 (1).
Earlier, Justice Patel said, "let's take a hypothetical or maybe not so hypothetical situation.
We are soon going to enter 2004 and we will see campaigns and rallies.
Suppose an online person questions the statements made in such a rally; is it the business of the government to look into it and say it is wrong?"The hearing went on all day and is to continue on Friday.
At the end of long submissions, Justice Patel said to Seervai, "The chilling effect that you speak of and I am not talking about the AC in my courtroom, is that of self-censorship.
If they are able to justify the amendment, then we will see.
If not then we will see that too.''
Music
Trailers
DailyVideos
India
Pakistan
Afghanistan
Bangladesh
Srilanka
Nepal
Thailand
StockMarket
Business
Technology
Startup
Trending Videos
Coupons
Football
Search
Download App in Playstore
Download App
Best Collections