Case Note & Summary
The judgment arose from a batch of writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The petitioners included Kunal Kamra, a comedian engaged in social and political satire; Editors Guild of India, a not-for-profit organization founded in 1978 to safeguard press freedom; and Association of India Magazines, a registered society comprising magazine publishers with digital content. The respondent was Union of India through the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Ministry of Law and Justice, and Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 3(i)(II)(A) and Rule 3(i)(II)(C) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules 2023, which amended Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021. They alleged that these provisions violated Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and were ultra vires Section 79 and Section 87(2)(z) and (zg) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The core grievance was that the impugned Rule empowered a government-notified Fact Check Unit to identify the veracity or otherwise of information relating to the business of the Government, thereby making the Government the sole arbiter of truth in respect of any business related to itself. The petitioners contended that this had a chilling effect on the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. The petitions sought to quash the impugned Rule and declare it unconstitutional. The court noted that the Information Technology Act was enacted in 2000 to provide legal recognition for electronic commerce and electronic communication. The judgment extracted Section 69A, which permits the Central Government to block public access to information through any computer resource in the interests of sovereignty, integrity, defence, security, friendly relations with foreign states, public order or prevention of cognizable offences, subject to prescribed procedures and safeguards. It also set out Section 79, explaining that before its substitution the section conferred limited immunity from liability for network service providers only in respect of offences under the Act and its rules; after the 2008 amendment, Section 79 offered intermediaries immunity from liability under any other legislation as well, provided they observed due diligence and other prescribed guidelines. The impugned Rule was challenged as exceeding the limits of these provisions and the rule-making power under Section 87(2)(z) and (zg). The judgment recorded that the matter was reserved on 29 September 2023 and pronounced on 31 January 2024. The bench comprised G.S. Patel and Dr. Neela Gokhale, JJ. Dr. Neela Gokhale J delivered the judgment after receiving a draft prepared by G.S. Patel J, stating that she was unable to concur with his reasoning and conclusion except as made clear. However, the final reasoning, analysis and operative directions are not contained in the provided text. The extract ends with the facts and statutory provisions, and does not disclose the final decision or the ratio decidendi. Therefore, no definitive holding can be stated based on the available text.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Freedom of Speech and Expression - Article 19(1)(a) Constitution of India - Challenge to Rule 3(i)(II)(A) and (C) of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules 2023 - Petitioners contended that the impugned Rule had a chilling effect on freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, and the court noted that the batch of writ petitions raises important questions relatable primarily to this fundamental right (Paras 1-3). B) Constitutional Law - Right to Equality - Article 14 Constitution of India - Challenge to Rule 3(i)(II)(A) and (C) of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules 2023 - Petitioners alleged that the impugned Rule was violative of Article 14 because it vested authority in a government-notified Fact Check Unit to determine veracity of information, making the Government the sole arbiter of truth in respect of any business related to itself (Paras 1-3). C) Information Technology Law - Intermediary Liability Exemption - Section 79 of Information Technology Act, 2000 - The impugned Rule was challenged as ultra vires Section 79, and the court set out the original and substituted text of Section 79, noting that the 2008 amendment broadened intermediary immunity from liability under any legislation (Paras 4). D) Information Technology Law - Blocking Powers - Section 69A of Information Technology Act, 2000 - The court extracted Section 69A, which empowers the Central Government to block public access to information through any computer resource in specified interests, subject to safeguards (Paras 4). E) Information Technology Law - Rule-Making Power - Section 87(2)(z) and (zg) of Information Technology Act, 2000 - Petitioners assailed the impugned Rule as beyond the rule-making power conferred by these provisions, and the court noted this challenge in the overview of the case (Paras 1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Rule 3(i)(II)(A) and (C) of Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules 2023 amending Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of IT Rules 2021 violate Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) and 21 of Constitution of India; Whether the impugned Rule is ultra vires Section 79 and Section 87(2)(z) and (zg) of Information Technology Act 2000; Whether the impugned Rule has a chilling effect on freedom of speech and expression; Whether Government can appoint a Fact Check Unit to act as sole arbiter of truth in respect of any business related to itself
Final Decision
The final decision is not mentioned in the provided text.
Law Points
- Freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India
- Reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2)
- Government cannot be sole arbiter of truth regarding its own business
- Chilling effect on speech
- Intermediary liability exemption under Section 79 of Information Technology Act 2000
- Power to block content under Section 69A of Information Technology Act 2000
- Rule-making power under Section 87(2)(z) and (zg) of Information Technology Act 2000
