On Tuesday (19th March) Comedian Kunal Kamra moves to the Supreme Court, seeking an interim order to stay the operation of Fact Check Units (FCUs) that have been set up under the 2023 amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, commonly referred to as the IT Amendment Rules 2023.
NEW DELHI: On Tuesday (19th March), stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra moved to the Supreme Court, requesting a temporary stay to the Central government’s directive to establish Fact Check Units (FCUs) as per the 2023 amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules (IT Amendment Rules 2023).
The bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and other justices, will look into Kamra’s complaint.
Under the IT Amendment Rules,2023, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology of the Central Government has the authority to designate a fact-checking organization.
The IT Amendment Rules of 2023 provide that the Central Government’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology can notify a fact-checking body, which is empowered to identify and tag what it considers false or fake online news with respect to any activity of the Central Government.
It is Kamra’s concern that the FCU regime will in effect coerce social media companies to implement self-interested censorship of online content about the central government.
“Intermediaries – as profit making, commercial enterprises – would naturally choose to avoid civil or criminal liability for third-party content, and would invariably remove it … There is already a robust, existing mechanism to address the concern of fake news about the Central Government (in the form of the Press Information Bureau or the PIB),” his plea said.
His concern was raised after a court decided not to stop these new rules, making Kamra take his case to the Supreme Court. He argues that this could unfairly limit what people can say online and affect anyone who wants to share their thoughts on government actions.
“While the Impugned Rules (and the IT Rules in general) are facially directed at intermediaries, it is users (and the information created and hosted by them on various platforms) that are the subject of the Impugned Rules … [it] is extremely broad in its sweep, and would operate to muzzle speech against the Central Government,” Kamra has contended.
Kamra’s challenge also asks bigger questions about how these rules might change the way people talk about politics and government online. He thinks this could harm democracy by silencing different opinions.
“The Impugned Rules do not contemplate the issuance of a notice to the user prior to the identification of information by the FCU, or prior to the takedown by the intermediary … they would inter alia apply to any content hosted by intermediaries that contradict facts, figures or data of the government,” the petition says.
READ ALSO: Bombay High Court IT Rules Amendment, Fact Check Unit Notification: Prima Facie No Case
“Petitioner, who is a political satirist, makes his living out of commenting on what can be stated to be the “business of the Central Government”. Further, most of the Petitioner’s engagement with the public is driven by social media. Any hindrance in accessing the accounts of the Petitioner will be a violation of his fundamental right to practice his profession … will affect his livelihood and right to live with dignity,” Kamra has said in his appeal.
“The threat of suspension or deactivation of accounts will deter users from posting content in the fear that any criticism or opposition to government policy … This institution of a chilling effect will greatly affect public discourse and have a negative impact on democracy as a whole as it is a direct attack on free speech, thought and expression,” it has been submitted.
