Delhi High Court seeks L-G, MeitY reply on police powers
The petition, filed by the Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC.in), contests the notification designating Delhi Police as the Nodal Agency under the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, allowing them to issue takedown notices under the IT Act.
The matter is scheduled for hearing on September 17.
The SFLC argues that only the Central Government has blocking powers under Section 69A of the IT Act and related rules. Granting these powers to the police is 'ultra vires' and oversteps statutory limits.
The plea raises concerns over unchecked censorship and violation of fundamental rights, citing Shreya Singhal and Madhyamam Broadcasting rulings.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
5 hours ago
- Scroll.in
Delhi HC dismisses plea by actor Jacqueline Fernandez to quash money-laundering case against her
The Delhi High Court on Thursday dismissed Hindi film actor Jacqueline Fernandez's petition seeking to quash a Rs 200 crore money laundering case linked to conman Sukesh Chandrasekhar, Live Law reported. The actor had moved court seeking to quash the Enforcement Directorate's case against her, along with a second supplementary chargesheet that names her as the tenth accused. In her plea, Fernandez claimed that she was a victim of Chandrasekhar's 'maliciously targeted attack'. 'There is absolutely no indication she had any involvement whatsoever in aiding him to launder his purportedly ill-gotten wealth,' the legal news outlet quoted the plea as saying. The petition said that in view of this, she could not be prosecuted for alleged money laundering. Fernandez's plea also stated that the Enforcement Directorate had acknowledged that Tihar Jail officials gave Chandrasekhar unrestricted access to mobile phones and other technology, which he allegedly used to deceive the original complainant and several film artists, including herself. The plea further argued that since the agency had already recorded her statement as a prosecution witness in the original fraud case, continuing proceedings against her in the money laundering case was unjustified. In the money laundering case, Chandrashekhar is accused of extorting around Rs 215 crore from Shivinder Singh, a former promoter of pharmaceutical giant Ranbaxy, and his wife Aditi Singh. Chandrashekhar had allegedly impersonated the Union home secretary, law secretary and an officer in the prime minister's office while speaking to them. On August 7, 2022, Chandrashekhar was arrested by the Delhi Police. The Enforcement Directorate is also investigating the allegations that Chandrashekhar used funds gained by cheating and extorting high-profile individuals to buy gifts for Fernandez. The agency had named the actor in a supplementary chargesheet in the case. The supplementary chargesheet alleged that Chandrashekhar gave gifts worth Rs 5.71 crore to Fernandez from the proceeds of crime generated by criminal activities, including extortion. The investigating agency also claimed that Fernandez was aware that the gifts given to her were the proceeds of crime.
The Print
6 hours ago
- The Print
Karnataka's fake news bill won't survive a court challenge
The bill deprives social media intermediaries of their statutory immunity from state persecution for user-generated content, a legal protection commonly referred to in internet law as 'safe harbour'. India's nodal Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) provides for safe harbour protections and allows social media companies to host user content with conditional immunity, within a clearly defined legal framework. In contrast, Karnataka's fake news bill proposes to hold social media companies accountable for violating any provision of the proposed law. Karnataka's proposed Misinformation and Fake News (Prohibition) Bill, 2025, is poorly drafted and replete with structural infirmities. It is also at odds with existing central laws and its constitutional validity is questionable. Let's see how. The bill envisions a government-appointed Fake News on Social Media Regulatory Authority, with sweeping powers to preemptively block or ban content it deems illegal. However, it does not clarify how these powers will sync with the safe harbour protections under the IT Act. Without safe harbour protections, social media companies could face a deluge of criminal penalties for content that is difficult to monitor and filter, such as superstitions or unscientific claims, both deemed illegal under the bill. The Authority's blocking powers create a parallel mechanism to the content-blocking procedures already prescribed under the Centre's IT Act. The lack of standard procedural safeguards, such as the need to notify penalised parties or offer them a fair hearing, further disregards the minimum standards set by the IT Act. That law limits content blocking to specific grounds such as public order, sovereignty, and integrity of India, friendly relations with foreign states, or preventing incitement to an offence — all of which correspond to the restrictions under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Also read: Karnataka's new misinformation bill can penalise social media users for honest mistakes Constitutionality in question Lawmaking in India seems stuck in a time loop: each new attempt to regulate online misinformation repeats old constitutional mistakes. In the past two years, multiple well-intentioned policy interventions have tried to crack the whip on misleading online speech – including the now-withdrawn Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, the Fact Check Unit under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, state-funded media monitoring centres in Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, and Punjab, and even the Maharashtra Special Public Security Act, 2024. Most constitutional law experts agree that these efforts exceed the permissible restrictions on speech by allowing the state to become the arbiter of truth. The Bombay High Court struck down the IT Rules provision that empowered the Union government to set up a Fact Check Unit. The court ruled that the provision was unconstitutionally vague, exceeded the limits enshrined under Article 19(2), and had a chilling effect on free speech. The Supreme Court of India has also clearly held that free speech may not be restricted on grounds beyond those enumerated in Article 19(2). Restricting speech simply because it is labelled 'fake news' creates confusion among users and social media companies alike, given the broad range of content that could fall under this rubric, from satire to critical reporting on government policy. Any law that restricts misleading speech must be proportionate to be considered constitutional. The definitions of 'fake news' and 'misinformation' in the Karnataka bill are vague, constitute an overreach, and exceed the reasonable restrictions permitted under Article 19(2). For instance, speech can be categorised as 'misinformation' if it is 'prejudicial to public health', a restriction not recognised under the Constitution. The enforcement powers granted to the Authority allow it to judge whether speech is 'disrespectful to Sanatan Dharma', 'unscientific', or 'superstitious'. These catchall and subjective limitations are constitutionally fraught and leave room for government misuse, as well as preventative hyper removal by intermediaries seeking to avoid liability. Also read: Draft DPDP Rules see no difference between India's allies and adversaries on data transfer Lack of independence The functional independence and competence of the proposed Authority are also in question. The bill allows the Karnataka government to constitute the six-member Authority. Its composition includes the Minister for Kannada and Culture, two members from the state legislature, two representatives from social media companies, and one civil servant. This means that a body with sweeping powers to block content critical of the government will be entirely appointed by the executive. It will act as the judge, jury, and enforcer, with no institutional safeguards like fixed tenure, protected salary, or minimum judicial qualifications, which usually guarantee the independence of any regulator. The lack of judicial representation further undermines the Authority's legal prowess to adjudicate what constitutes illegal content. The Karnataka government's concerns about regulating misleading speech may be genuine, but the heavy-handed approach adopted in this bill does not seem to pass constitutional muster. A fixation on penalising false speech or 'fake news' in toto won't survive legal challenge. It is time lawmakers in India realise that the problem of misleading speech cannot be solved through isolated, punitive measures. Instead, the government should focus on building collaborative frameworks with digital intermediaries, who have limited capacities to identify and moderate illegal content amidst the avalanche of posts on their platforms. For instance, YouTube's Priority Flagger Program allows governments and non-governmental organisations to flag potentially illegal content for expedited review. Such models ensure a steady stream of flagged content while preserving procedural fairness and constitutional safeguards. Measures like these should be explored to ensure any restriction on a fundamental right remains within constitutional bounds. The author works at Koan Advisory Group, a technology policy consulting firm. Views are personal. This article is part of ThePrint-Koan Advisory series that analyses emerging policies, laws and regulations in India's technology sector. Read all the articles here. (Edited by Prashant)
India Today
11 hours ago
- India Today
Assam forest land used for camps without approval, action ordered against official
The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change has directed legal action against Assam's Special Chief Secretary MK Yadava for serious violations of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The violations pertain to the unauthorised diversion of protected forest land in Assam to build Commando Battalion Camps without securing the mandatory prior approval from the Central to official documents, Yadava, who was then serving as Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force, allegedly permitted the diversion of 28 hectares in Geleky Reserved Forest under the Sivasagar Division and 11.5 hectares in Innerline Reserved Forest under the Hailakandi Division for non-forest purposes. The Ministry has now empowered Divisional Forest Officers in Assam to initiate legal proceedings against construction projects, undertaken by the Assam Police Housing Corporation Ltd., proceeded without Central clearance. Inspections carried out by the Ministry's Regional Office in Shillong confirmed that large-scale permanent construction had already taken place in both forest areas. The August 2024 inspection of Geleky Reserved Forest found that nearly 80 percent of the structures for the Commando Battalion Camp had been completed. A similar site visit in March 2024 at Innerline Reserved Forest revealed that around 500 workers and multiple heavy vehicles were engaged in construction activity spread across 11.5 hectares. The plinth area of buildings under construction was estimated at 30,000 square Advisory Committee acknowledged the importance of deploying security forces to protect forests, but reiterated that diversion of forest land requires prior approval from the Central Government, as laid out in Rule 11.8 of the Forest (Conservation) Act and the updated 2023 rules and justification for the construction - citing forest protection concerns - was deemed unsatisfactory and 'not legally tenable' by the Ministry. Under Rule 15(2) of the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Rules, 2023, the Central Government has directed the State Government to initiate Forest Officers have been given 45 days to file complaints and submit action-taken reports, with the Assam Government required to provide monthly updates to the Ministry's Shillong matter is further complicated by a conflict of interest. As Special Chief Secretary, Yadava now holds a position that may influence whether legal proceedings against him are approved - raising questions over institutional the National Green Tribunal has closed the Damchera camp case after a post-facto clearance, the Geleky case remains pending before the tribunal's Kolkata bench.- EndsMust Watch
