The Madras High Court on Wednesday issued notice in a writ petition moved by the Digital News Publishers Association, comprising thirteen media outlets and journalist Mukund Padmanabhan challenging the constitutional validity of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
A Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy has tagged the writ petition along with a pending plea moved by Carnatic musician TM Krishna, which was admitted earlier this month, Bar & Bench reported.
The Court has also granted the petitioners liberty to approach the Court for interim relief if any coercive action is taken against them invoking Rules 12, 14 and 16 of the IT Rules, 2021.
The first petitioner in the latest challenge i.e. the Digital News Publishers Association comprises of ABP Network Private Limited, Amar Ujala Limited, DB Corp Limited, Express Network Pvt Ltd, HT Digital Streams Limited, IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd, Jagran Prakashan Limited, Lokmat Media Private Limited, NDTV Convergence Limited, TV Today Network Limited, The Malayala Manorama Co (P) Ltd, Times Internet Limited, and Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited.
Published: 23 Jun 2021, 6:37 PM IST
Appearing for the petitioners, Senior Advocate PS Raman urged the Court for interim relief, restraining the operation of Rules 12, 14 and 16 against the petitioners. The Court recorded the petitioners' submission that there is sufficient basis for the petitioners' apprehension that coercive and arm-twisting action may be taken under such provisions.
In his arguments, Raman noted that TM Krishna's plea challenging the IT Rules, 2021 focused substantially on the right to privacy. On the other hand, in the instant case, the media was concerned with how it is affected by Rules 12, 14 and 16 of the IT Rules 2021, he told the Court.
He submitted that while the media is quite comfortable with implementing a self-regulatory mechanism as contemplated by the Rules, it is concerned by the inter-departmental body envisaged under Rule 14.
The self-regulory body for media outlets envisaged by the Rules is to be chaired by a former Supreme Court or High Court Judge. However, Raman pointed out that the inter-departmental body under Rule 14 to which appeals against decisions of the self-regulatory body go, is comprised entirely of bureaucrats.
Published: 23 Jun 2021, 6:37 PM IST
Concern was also raised over Rule 16 (Blocking of information in case of emergency), which Senior Advocate Raman pointed out was a "Henry the VIIIth", "omnibus" provision.
The Court, however, opined that there is no need to issue an omnibus interim order at this stage since no coercive action has been taken against the media outlets as of yet.
"Since no adverse action has been initiated against the petitioners as of now, no omnibus order made at this stage. However if such provisions are resorted to agains the petitioners, petitioners will be at liberty to apply for interim relief," the order stated.
The matter has been listed for further hearing in three weeks. The respondents have been asked to file their counter by two weeks time.
Highlights of the petitioners' contentions include:
Published: 23 Jun 2021, 6:37 PM IST
Published: 23 Jun 2021, 6:37 PM IST
Follow us on: Facebook, Twitter, Google News, Instagram
Join our official telegram channel (@nationalherald) and stay updated with the latest headlines
Published: 23 Jun 2021, 6:37 PM IST