Officials in the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology ( Meity), speaking on the condition of anonymity, said a revised set of rules would be uploaded “later” and the June 1 dated draft proposal was taken down to “make some changes,”.
They declined to divulge the nature of the changes being made or when a revised set of regulations will again be made available.
The volte-face by Meity on the proposed changes to the Information Technology Act ( IT) Rules 2021 comes only a year after the new rules, including several contentious clauses, came into force on May 26, 2021.
In the now withdrawn draft, the IT ministry while mooting the establishment of one or more grievance appellate committees to evaluate complaints from aggrieved social media users, noted that such oversight would “provide an alternative” to users who do not agree with the decisions taken by in-house resident grievance officers within any social media or internet intermediary.
Social media users can “seek an alternative redressal mechanism,” it had stated. However, it also proposed that “user has the right to seek judicial remedy at any time.”
Discover the stories of your interest
Further, the grievance appellate committees would have to decide on user appeals within 30 days and every order passed by such a committee has to be complied with by the platform, the amendments said.
The changes mooted to the IT Rules were to “deal with such new and emerging issues, as well as to address the gaps identified, “the ministry had stated in the draft, which was reviewed by ET.
Industry pushback
While “appreciating” proposals in the now withdrawn draft requiring social media and internet platforms to respect the constitutional rights of Indians, including privacy and due process, digital privacy activists said the clauses were, however, worded vaguely.
“We appreciate the amendment but the clause is vague and doesn’t clarify whether it proposes that fundamental rights can now be judicially enforced against platforms,” Apar Gupta of Internet Freedom Foundation said.
In the latest draft, the IT ministry had also reiterated that the resident grievance officers of a social media intermediary shall, within 24 hours, acknowledge any complaints of users related to the removal of content, suspension, blocking and removal of account of the user, redress the problem within 72 hours and dispose of it within 15 days.
Experts are of the view that while such a timeline may be helpful in cases where the content is of sensitive nature such as sexual abuse or child abuse, the timelines should be relaxed for other complaints and infringements.
“For harms like defamation and IPR (intellectual property right) infringement, such short durations may lead to more challenges than it seeks to resolve and only courts would be in a position to determine whether such content violates defamation laws or infringes upon IPR,” Kazim Rizvi, founder of tech policy group The Dialogue said.
On one hand intermediaries are expected to respect the constitutional rights of the users, which include free speech per Rule 3(1)(n). On the other hand, they are expected to redress and dispose-off user complaints pertaining to issues like defamation within 15 days, added Rizvi. “This shall amount to the intermediaries acting as arbiters of truth and justice with the power to restrict free speech of the users…”
Concerns on traceability
Lauding the government’s attempt to place a fresh draft for public consultation, industry experts pointed out that the now aborted move had also missed out on addressing critical concerns including a review of traceability provision as well as mandating the use of automated tools to review the content on the platform.
One of the most contentious issues in the IT Rules of 2021 was the mandate requiring instant messaging apps to reveal the first originator of the message on their platform. Social media conglomerate Meta group’s WhatsApp has challenged this provision in the Delhi High Court, while other companies have moved various High Courts against the provisions of the IT Rules.
Intermediaries had, in 2021, also protested before giving in to the 72-hour deadline for blocking or taking down certain content. The rules also mandate voluntary verification of users and directs companies to set up an India office and appoint key resident officials such as compliance and grievance officers.
Onus on intermediaries
Meity had also proposed that more onus be placed on social media intermediaries on the issue of keeping users notified, at least once every year, on important issues around internet privacy and social media usage policies. In addition, it said intermediaries must also regularly inform users about provisions of the IT Act that prohibit storing, sharing or uploading or modifying obscene, pornographic, paedophilic, libellous, racially or ethnically objectionable content as well as content relating to or encouraging money laundering among others.
“The proposed changes under 3(1)(b) now tasks intermediaries with “shall cause the users of its computer resource not to host, display etc.” problematic content, which appear excessive to their functions and generally would impede on free speech/ information processing landscape,” said Rahul Sharma, Founder, Grade Ace, a tech policy consultancy firm.
He added that the Rules (or revision of IT Act, whenever released should try and address one of the core concerns more effectively – how to make companies that are serving in India physically or digitally but are headquartered outside India to be subject to Indian jurisdiction and comply with laws and rules concerning data and content originating from India.
