SC to examine petition against IT rules on social media content

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Centre to respond to a petition seeking quashing Rule 16 of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 that allowed authorities to block social media accounts or content without a notice or an opportunity to be heard.

A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih agreed to examine a petition filed by Software Freedom Law Centre after senior advocate Indira Jaising submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no notice was given to the “originator” of the information and a notice was only sent to platforms such as X.

“The challenge is not that the government does not have the power to take down information, but while taking down the information, notice should be given to the person who has put that information in the public domain,” she submitted.

There were numerous instances of websites, applications and social media accounts being blocked without a notice or an opportunity to be heard, the petitioner contended.

By making optional the issuance of blocking request notice to the originator of the content, Rule 8 vested “unguided discretion” in the authorities whether or not to issue a notice to the originator, the petition submitted.

“The blocking rules, 2009, in their present form, effectively allow the respondents to block online content posted by citizens without providing any rationale and without affording any chance for the owner or poster of the content to be heard,” it said.

“We prima facie feel that the rule had to be read in a manner where if a person was identifiable, notice had to be given," Justice Gavai said.

As Jaising said the court would be familiar with social media, Justice Gavai said he was not on any social media platform. “I am not on either X, Y or Z,” Justice Gavai said.

The 2009 Rules also mandated all complaints and requests made for blocking of content were to be kept confidential, the petition pointed out. “This position of law results in a citizen being deprived of their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution and confronted with the (metaphorical) ‘inscrutable face of a sphinx’,” it said, seeking the top court’s intervention.

It was crucial to protect the fundamental right of speech and expression of citizens, which was necessary both for the liberty of individuals as well as the democratic fabric of the society, the petition contended.

Referring to Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, dealing with the power to issue directions for blocking public access to any information through any computer resource, the plea sought directions for the intermediary and the content creator or originator to be served a notice.