Why Did the Bombay High Court Strike Down the Amended IT Rules, 2021?
The court deemed the amended rules unconstitutional, citing their vague language and potential for abuse.
The rules were seen as promoting censorship rather than providing reasonable restrictions on free speech, violating Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
Court highlighted that the absence of procedural safeguards effectively made the government a “judge in its own cause.”
What Did the Amended Rules Ask of Social Media Intermediaries?
Social media platforms were required to make "reasonable efforts" to prevent users from sharing content flagged as misinformation by the government’s Fact Check Unit (FCU).
Intermediaries had to take down flagged content within 36 hours to maintain their legal immunity (safe harbour protection) from third-party content
The rules allowed the government to unilaterally determine what constituted "fake, false, or misleading" content, raising concerns about misuse
How Did the Supreme Court Intervene in the Matter?
Following a split verdict in the High Court, Justice Chandurkar was appointed to deliver a tie-breaking ruling.
The Supreme Court temporarily stayed the operation of the FCU notification, citing serious constitutional questions regarding freedom of speech and expression.
Justice Chandurkar noted that the government’s assurances about excluding political commentary were insufficient to prevent potential future misuse.
COMMENTS