The government recently notified rules under which it will set up appellate panels to redress grievances that users may have against decisions of social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook on hosting contentious content.

IT Rules

• The IT Rules derive their authority fromthe Information Technology Act, 2000,which provides legal recognition for electronic commerce.
• Safe Harbour Provision:
• The Act provides a "safe harbour" for intermediariesthat observe due diligence in discharging their duties and follow guidelines prescribed by the state.
• Intermediaries:
• Section 79of the Act grants immunity to intermediaries, as long as they follow due diligence and state-prescribed guidelines.
• Intermediaries include social media platformslike WhatsApp, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.
• First Originator:
• The IT Rulesimpose obligations on intermediaries and require social media platforms to provide technological solutions to identify the first originator of any information on their service, under certain circumstances.
• The IT Rules have been subject to several sets of challenges, and petitions are pending consideration in the Supreme Court of India.

New Regulations

• The 2021 IT Rules replaced the previous guidelinesand sought to regulate intermediaries and digital news media.
• Social media platforms were required to provide technological solutionsto identify the first originator of any information, risking privacy.
• The amendments introduced in April 2023give the government power to decide for itself what information is bogus and exercise wide-ranging powers of censorship by compelling intermediaries to take down posts deemed fake or false.
• The new regulations threaten freedom of speech and civil libertiesin India by restricting speech through executive order rather than legislation.
• Article 19(1)(a)of the Indian Constitution grants every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression, which can only be limited through reasonable restrictions made by law on the grounds stipulated in Article 19(2).
• Fake news and misinformationare not grounds on which speech can be limited, and the amendments made to the IT Rules do not caveat the restraints they place in any manner.
• TheFact Check Unit has limitless powers to decide what information is false and compel social media intermediaries to act based on these findings, which are open-ended and undefined.

Concerns

• Lacks Clear Definitions:
• The amendment fails to define fake news and allows the government''s fact-check unit to declare the veracity of any news "in respect of any business" that involves the state.
• The use of undefined words, especiallythe phrase "any business", gives the government unchecked power to decide what people can see, hear, and read on the internet.
• Not a Standard Practice:
• A comprehensive parliamentary legislation on fake news, grounded in Article 19(2), would have been a more constitutionally committed campaign against fake news.
• In France,an independent judge is responsible for making declarations to counter the spread of misinformation during elections.
• Alawfully enacted statute would have demanded consideration of less restrictive alternatives to removing misinformation.
• Removable of Information:
• Intermediaries willremove information deemed false by the Fact Check Unit, leaving only the state to determine what is true.
• The new regulation gives the government the power to decide what information is bogus and exercise censorship by compelling intermediaries to take down posts deemed fake or false.
• Lesser Rights:
• The rights of the press and individuals to question authority and speak truth to power will be diminished, and civil liberties will be curtailed.
• Violates the Supreme Court''s Judgment:
• Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015), Supreme Court held that a law that limits speech can neither be vague nor over-broad.

Looking ahead

• Technology Solutions:
• Instead of relying solely on censorship, the government and intermediaries can invest in technology solutionsto tackle misinformation and fake news.
• For instance, algorithms can be developedto identify and flag false information, and fact-checking websites can be promoted.
• Self-Regulation:
• Intermediaries canadopt self-regulatory measures to prevent the spread of fake news and misinformation.
• Thiscan include setting up internal committees to monitor content and flag any false information and working with fact-checking websites to ensure accuracy.
• Public Awareness:
• It is essential to create awareness among the publicabout the dangers of censorship and the importance of free speech.
• This can be done through Social media campaigns, workshops, and discussions in schools, colleges, and other public forums.
• Collaborative Approach:
• The government, intermediaries, and civil society organizations can work together to develop a collaborative approach to tackle the problem of fake news and misinformation.
• This can includesetting up a joint task force to identify and remove false information and promoting media literacy among the public.