This pertains to a case being heard regarding the constitutionality of the Information Technology (Amendment) Rules, 2023 in a PIL filed by political satirist Kunal Kamra and the Association of Indian Magazines.
A bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale are hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the IT Rules.
Also read | MeitY likely to lead proposed body to fact-check government news
Last week, senior advocate Navroz Seervai argued on behalf of political satirist Kunal Kamra, and lawyer Gautam Bhatia argued on behalf of Association of Indian Magazines. Both highlighted how the provision violated the fundamental right to free speech and expression. The petitioners and the intervenor have concluded their arguments. The matter will now be heard on August 31, and the respondent is slated to commence their submissions.
It was also submitted that false speech was not a ground under Article 19(2) and that free speech could not be restricted on the basis of “low value speech” that was decided by the Government.
Discover the stories of your interest
Another aspect argued was that the increased burden on the intermediaries to ensure that prohibited content was not available on their platforms was a form of “legal coercion” that would lead to self-censorship by intermediaries who would not want to lose their safe harbour. The Editors Guild of India has also filed a petition against the amendment.
Also read | No sweeping power or a draconian move: MoS IT on govt’s fact-checking unit
In a statement last month, the guild had said the amendment to the IT Rules will have deeply adverse implications for press freedom in the country.
“…the moment the fact-check unit of the central government disputes the truth/veracity of a news item regarding any business of the central government, the fact of such disagreement alone obliterates the publisher’s freedom to publish and citizen’s right to access such information,” it had said.
