1. Subject of Challenge (Para 1):
   The case challenges the 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 amendment pertains to the obligations of intermediaries in preventing the dissemination of certain types of content.

2. Initial Judgment (Para 2):
   On 31st January 2024, Justice G.S. Patel struck down the amended rule, holding it to be in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 19(1)(g) of the Indian Constitution, Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000, and the principles of natural justice.

3. Contrary Opinion by Justice Neela Gokhale (Para 3):
   Justice Neela Gokhale upheld the validity of the amended Rule, stating it was not violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. She emphasized that the amendment was consistent with Section 79 of the IT Act and the Supreme Court judgment in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India.

4. Difference of Opinion (Para 4):
   A significant disagreement arose between Justice G.S. Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale, primarily over whether the impugned rule was ultra vires and unconstitutional.

5. Referral to Chief Justice (Para 5):
   Due to this difference of opinion, the matter was referred to the Chief Justice for appropriate directions. Consequently, the case was referred to Justice A.S. Chandurkar for a third opinion.

6. Opinion of Justice A.S. Chandurkar (Para 6):
   In his opinion dated 20th September 2024, Justice Chandurkar agreed with Justice Patel, concluding that the amended rule was unconstitutional due to several factors, including vagueness, overbreadth, and violation of the test of proportionality.

7. Final Pronouncement (Para 7-8):
   Based on the majority opinion, the amended rule was declared unconstitutional, and the petitions were allowed.

8. Costs (Para 9):
   No order as to costs was passed in the final judgment.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Articles 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India:
  The rule was found to violate the right to equality (Article 14), freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1)(a)), and the right to carry on any occupation (Article 19(1)(g)).

• Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000:
  The amended rule was held to be ultra vires the IT Act. The protection under Section 79 (safe harbor for intermediaries) ceases only when intermediaries knowingly and intentionally allow the transmission of offensive content.

• Principles of Natural Justice:
  The rule violated principles of natural justice due to its vague and overbroad language, failing to provide clear guidance on what constitutes "fake, false, or misleading" content.

Ratio Decidendi:

The ratio decidendi of the judgment focuses on the violation of constitutional rights, particularly freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). The court held that the vague and broad terms of the amended rule, without clear definitions, have a chilling effect on free speech, disproportionately affecting intermediaries. The amendment was also declared ultra vires of the IT Act of 2000 as it exceeded the powers granted under Section 79.

Subjects:

#ConstitutionalLaw #FreedomOfSpeech #InformationTechnologyAct #DigitalMediaEthics #ITRulesAmendment2023 #IntermediaryLiability