If Sibal wants change, let him come with bill: P Rajeeve

The purpose of Section 79 (IT Act), amended, is to give harbour protection the intermediaries, but this rule has gone against the intent of Parliament by introducing a private censorship mechanism. These rules cast an obligation on the intermediaries to remove access to any content within 36 hours of receiving a complaint from an affected person, that falls under the category of a wide, vague, undefined list of “unlawful” content specified in the rules.

[related-post]

Sir, Section 69 of the Act gives power to the government to issue direction for interception or monitoring or decryption of any information through computer resource. It clearly specifies what are the provisions and procedures followed by the executive. But, Sir, the Intermediaries Guidelines mandate the intermediary to provide information of any such assistance to government agencies without any safeguards.

I am sure, as an eminent lawyer, our hon. minister, Mr Kapil Sibal, is well aware of the fundamental principles of the subordinate legislation that essential legislative function cannot be undertaken by the executive since it is the sole prerogative function of Parliament. If the government wants any change, it has to come to Parliament.

This rule is in violation of the Constitution. Article 19(1) ensures the right to freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(2) defines the “reasonable restrictions”. But Rule 2 goes beyond article 19(2). This rule mandates the intermediary to disable content without providing an opportunity to hear the user who posted the content. (It) prohibits the posting of certain content on the Internet while it may be lawful in other media.

Sir, the ministry issued a clarification in 2011. “…In case any issue arises concerning the interpretation of the terms used by the intermediary, which is not agreed to by the user or affected person, the same can only be adjudicated by the court of law.” Their attitude is, “Run away from defining these terms.” The ministry has stated that the intermediaries have defined these terms; if you have any objection to the definition, you can approach the court.

I request the House to annul this rule to protect the rights of Parliament. If the minister wants any change, let him come to the House with an amendment bill and make the rules accordingly