Mumbai: Two petitions filed in the Bombay High Court challenging provisions of the Information Technology (IT) Rules, 2021, on Monday contended that the rules were "vague" and "draconian".
The petitioners, digital news portal The Leaflet and journalist Nikhil Wagle, told the HC that the IT Rules will have a "chilling effect" on the freedom of press and a citizen's right to free speech guaranteed by the Constitution.
Senior counsel Darius Khambata, who appeared for The Leaflet, urged a bench of Chief Justice DipankarDatta and Justice G S Kulkarni to immediately stay the implementation of the new rules.
The petitioners said the new rules propose to impose several regulations on content published by citizens, journalists, digital news portals online, and demand accountability and grievance redressal from social media platforms, among other things. The premise of regulating content and demanding accountability is based on parameters that are vague and surpass the provisions of the existing IT Act and the constitutional right to freedom of speech under Article 19, the petitioners told the HC.
"There is a brazen regulation of content for the first time. These regulations go beyond the parameters of the IT Act. The rules also go far beyond the provisions of free speech under Article 19," Khambata said.
"The regulations are vague, and draconian. And they will have a chilling effect on authors, publishers, regular citizens who put anything on the internet. The rules are manifestly unreasonable," he said.
For instance, the rules prohibit media organisations from carrying out sting operations without proof, they demand that no defamatory content is published against any public personality. However, the regulations do not define what constitutes as adequate proof, or what can be considered as defamatory content, Khambata said.
"These rules are seeking to effectively monitor and censor speech on the internet by giving powers to a ministerial committee. This is the most draconian law on free speech in recent times," he said.
Advocate AbhayNevagi, who appeared for Wagle, told the HC that the rules were arbitrary, illegal, and violative of a citizen's right to privacy, freedom of speech, trade and liberty. Nevagi said the rules were against the principle of net-neutrality" and amounted to a form of censorship".