Case Note & Summary
The batch of writ petitions challenged the constitutional validity of the amendment dated 6th April 2023 to Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The petitioners, including Kunal Kamra, Editors Guild of India, and Association of India Magazines, contended that the amended rule violated Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, and was ultra vires Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Division Bench initially differed: Justice G.S. Patel struck down the rule, while Justice Neela Gokhale upheld it. The matter was referred to a third judge, Justice A.S. Chandurkar, who agreed with Justice Patel's view. By majority opinion, the court declared the amendment unconstitutional and struck it down, holding that the rule was vague, overbroad, failed the proportionality test, and caused a chilling effect on intermediaries. The petitions were allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Freedom of Speech and Expression - Article 19(1)(a) - The amended Rule 3(1)(b)(v) was held violative of Article 19(1)(a) as it imposed vague and overbroad restrictions on online speech, failing the proportionality test and causing a chilling effect on intermediaries. (Paras 1-8) B) Constitutional Law - Right to Practice Any Profession - Article 19(1)(g) - The Rule was struck down for violating Article 19(1)(g) as it imposed unreasonable restrictions on the business of intermediaries without adequate safeguards. (Paras 1-8) C) Constitutional Law - Right to Equality - Article 14 - The Rule was held violative of Article 14 due to its vague and arbitrary definitions of 'fake or false or misleading' information, leading to discriminatory application. (Paras 1-8) D) Information Technology - Intermediary Liability - Section 79, Information Technology Act, 2000 - The amended Rule was ultra vires Section 79 as it expanded the grounds for losing safe harbour beyond the statutory framework. (Paras 1-8) E) Administrative Law - Delegated Legislation - Proportionality - The Rule failed the proportionality test laid down in Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha (supra) as it was not the least restrictive means to achieve the stated objective. (Paras 1-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the amendment dated 6th April 2023 to Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 is ultra vires the Constitution of India and the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Final Decision
The amendment dated 6th April 2023 to Rule 3(1)(b)(v) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 is declared unconstitutional and struck down. Petitions allowed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Constitutional validity of delegated legislation
- proportionality test
- vagueness and overbreadth
- chilling effect on intermediaries
- safe harbour under Section 79 IT Act
- 2000
