Background
- Supreme Court has sought a response from the government on a plea challenging rules that empower it to block online content without prior notice or fair hearing.
Relevance : GS 2(Governance, Judiciary, Fundamental Rights)
Key Legal Provisions Challenged
- IT Rules, 2009 (Rules 8 & 9)
- Make it optional for the government to inform the content creator before blocking content.
- Rule 9 allows “emergency” blocking without informing the creator.
- Rule 16
- Enables blanket confidentiality regarding blocking requests and actions taken.
- Reduces transparency in content regulation.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Rule 9 is arbitrarily used to block content without a clear process for recourse.
- Lack of prior notice, reasoned order, and grievance redressal violates freedom of speech and expression.
- Current rules favor intermediaries (social media platforms) over original creators.
- Safe harbour protection (Section 79, IT Act) ensures intermediaries comply with blocking orders without defending content creators.
- Suggestion: Replace “or” in Rules 8 & 9 with “and” so that both intermediaries and content creators receive prior notice.
Court’s Observations
- Justice Gavai questioned whether the state has a duty to notify the original creators if they are identifiable.
- Acknowledged that prior notice and fair hearing are intrinsic to freedom of speech and expression.
Implications
- If upheld, the petition could enhance transparency and protect digital rights.
- May limit government discretion in arbitrary content blocking.
- Could redefine intermediary liability and strengthen legal protections for content creators.
