‘Natural justice requires a transparent process, where a reasonable opportunity of being heard is provided to a person and a legal order is given. No such safeguard exists in IT regulations Photo Credit: Getty Images/iStockphoto
George Orwell’s iconic novel 1984 introduces readers to Oceania, a tyrannical state with a state-mandated language, Newspeak. As described by Syme, a lexicologist at the Ministry of Truth, citizens are prevented from “thinking crime” when “every concept that may ever be needed shall be expressed by exactly one word, the meaning of which is rigorously defined”. and all its subsidiary meanings have been effaced and forgotten”.
This dystopian narrative is inspiring the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) which has created powers to determine internet content that is “fake or false or misleading” about “any business of the Central Government”. Intermediaries like social media platforms (Facebook and Twitter) and internet service providers (Airtel and BSNL) have to censor reports about the government (at the behest of the government). The rationale behind these changes, as in the press note, is for an “open, secure, and reliable, and accountable Internet”. But is this claim newspeak?
Read also: Explained | Do platforms have to remove ‘fake news’?
The first claim of an “open” internet can be examined by taking a closer look at Clause 3(i)(II)(C) of the IT Amendment Rules, 2023, which includes these powers which were notified on April 6, 2023 Was. “Fake or false or misleading” information about the central government will be determined by the “fact-checking unit of the central government”. Therefore, it will act as a judge in its own case.
no security measures
Natural justice requires a transparent process, where a reasonable opportunity of being heard is provided to a person and a legal order is given. No such safeguards exist in IT regulations, resulting in a black box of government censorship. At most, press releases and tweets by the government will rally citizens to their cause without providing legal reasoning or a remedy for legal challenge. In addition, some aggregate numbers will be provided in response to parliamentary questions. This may become the new definition of “open”.
Coming to the claim of keeping Indians “safe”, the rules are for the benefit of “any business of the Central Government”. Reasonably, one may accept that misinformation about the Central Government may, at times, result in public injury, but it is undeniable that the direct beneficiary is the Central Government itself. How can it be used?
Read also: Indian Newspaper Society demands withdrawal of new rules on fact-checking
There is precedent for the Press Information Bureau (PIB) fact-checking department making errors to journalistic reporting critical to public departments, despite being based on government documents. With the new powers, such a determination by a fact checking unit would result in making it inaccessible not only on social media but also on the website of the news portal. Therefore, it would prevent the readers from developing critical understanding through opposition of facts, which is a natural outcome of a democratic system. As Justice Mathew said in State of UP v. Rajnarayan (1975), “…but the executive is not an organ solely responsible for the public interest. It represents only an important element in it; but there are other elements . One such element is the administration of justice. The executive’s claim to have the exclusive and decisive power to determine what is in the public interest is a claim based on the assumption that the executive knows what is best for the citizen”. As in IT rules, the central government exclusively knows what is best to keep us safe.
no description
Such fact checking comes without any details on the composition of “fact checking bodies”, in order to create a “trusted” Internet. This is important because the design of regulatory institutions, when untied, or constituted with financial and functional autonomy, makes them subject to government and even political interests. It undermines the very basis of how trust in government is built through scrutiny, given that the executive branch enjoys immense powers of the sword and purse. The Supreme Court in R. Rajagopal v. State of TN (1994) explained it thus, “Our system of government demands… constant vigilance over the exercise of government power by the press and the media. It is essential to a good government.” Is.”
However, under the present arrangement, the central government would become the sole arbiter of truth; And trust us when it says it, Indians will have little choice.
basis of accountability
Ultimately, the basis of “accountability” lies in the remedial actions to be implemented. It is neither meant to be an artificial measure of appeasement nor disproportionate or aggressive punishment to demonstrate action. Often, when set in its proper context, “accountability” is used as a phrase to correct government and large corporations. How will IT regulations achieve this when they target the institutions that work for it?
The very mission for journalists is to report facts and speak truth to power. It makes us wonder what the slogan “Open, Secure and Reliable and Accountable Internet” means in Digital India.
Some clues may be provided by the rules of Newspeak, which banned the use of the word ‘free’, allowing it to be used “only in statements such as ‘This dog is free of lice’ or ‘This area is free from the weeds’.”
Tanmay Singh is Senior Litigation Counsel at Internet Freedom Foundation. Gayatri Malhotra is Associate Litigation Counsel at the Internet Freedom Foundation