Bombay High Court directs stay of operation of sub-rules (1) and (3) of Rule 9 of the Information Technology Rules, 2021

By - Sameeksha Negi*

The Bombay High Court has recently directed a stay of operation of sub-rules 1 and 3 of rule 9 of the new Information Technology Rules, 2021 which pertain to adherence to the Code of Ethics. The High court has prima facie observed that these provisions of the new IT rules infringe the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and are also against the substantive provisions of the Information Technology Act 2002.

Sub-rule 1 of rule 9 requires the publishers to observe the Code of Ethics laid down under the Appendix to the IT rules. Sub-rule 3 of rule 9 provides a three-tier mechanism involving, self-regulation by the publishers, self-regulation by self-regulating bodies of the publishers, and oversight mechanism by the Centre for ensuring observance and adherence to the Code of Ethics and for addressing grievances made in relation to the publishers.

Also Read - NALSA is requested to consider issuing a uniform country-wide SOP for protecting the rights of convicts to secure pre mature release: Supreme Court

The bench comprising Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Girish Kulkarni pronounced the interim order on two petitions, filed by digital news portal ‘The Leaflet’ and journalist Nikhil Wagle, challenging the constitutional validity of the new rules. The bench has granted 3 weeks to the Centre to file its reply to the said pleas and has listed the pleas for final hearing on September 27.

While the stay was granted on certain provisions of Rule 9, the bench refused to grant a stay on Rules 7, 14 and 16. The bench refused to grant stay on Rule 7 observing that the petitioner, Nikhil Wagle “has not been able to satisfy us that he is an ‘intermediary’ within the meaning of Section 2(w) of the IT Act”. On refusal to grant a stay on Rule 14 which deals with constitution of an ‘Inter-Departmental Committee’, the bench observed that “...in our opinion, there is no immediate urgency inasmuch as inter-departmental committee is yet to be constituted.

Also Read - The 2010 amendment in the Gratuity Act cannot be treated to be retrospective: Supreme Court

As far as refusal to grant stay on Rule 16 is concerned, the bench observed that “...such rule is pari materia to Rule 9 of the 2009 Rules which are still in operation. Also, it is not the petitioners case that they were at any time aggrieved by Rule 9 of the 2009 Rules”.

CLICK HERE TO READ ORDER.

*Sameeksha Negi has completed LL.M. from IMS Unison University, Dehradun this year.

Comments

Patna High Court Declares Bihar’s Reservation Amendments Ultra Vires

In a landmark decision, the Patna High Court has invalidated the Bihar government's legislative attempt to increase reservations for backward classes. The court's ruling focused on procedural flaws and the absence of a robust empirical basis for the hike, sparking a debate on judicial intervention in affirmative action policies. Background and Rationale Behind Setting Aside Bihar Reservation Increase Law The Bihar government had proposed an increase in reservations to address socio-economic disparities faced by backward classes. However, the court found that the state failed to follow due process, which includes conducting a thorough empirical study to justify the policy change. This procedural oversight led to the court's decision to strike down the increase. The High Court emphasized the necessity of a data-driven approach for policy changes related to reservations. The ruling underscored that without solid empirical evidence, such policies could not be justified within...

Pune Porsche Crash: Father of Minor Granted Bail

Image Credit: tv9marathi A Pune court has granted bail to the minor’s father, Vishal Agarwal, who faced charges under the Juvenile Justice Act for neglect and endangering the child by allowing him to drive without a license and consume alcohol. Additionally, bar owners and managers were arrested for serving alcohol to minors. The father, already in custody for other related charges, was implicated in the alleged manipulation of his son’s blood samples and in a separate case of kidnapping his driver. Advocate Prashant Patil argued that Vishal Agarwal's arrest was unlawful, contending that the charges were non-cognizable offenses and required a notice under the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Patil also highlighted contradictions in police reports, where the minor was listed as the accused in one FIR and as a victim in another. Also Read: Delhi High Court Stays Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's Bail in Excise Policy Case Earlier Proceedings in the Pune Porsche Crash Inc...

Counsel's failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review: Bombay High Court

By - Sameeksha Negi* The Bombay High Court has observed that “If Counsel has not urged a point, the fact that there were written submissions is immaterial if those written submissions were never in fact argued.” The Bench also added that “Counsel’s failure to argue written submissions is not a ground of review or, I dare say, even appeal. It is no ground to assail any order of any judge of any court.” The bench was hearing a review petition filed for seeking reinstatement of original arbitration petition on grounds some of which were never argued and others never pleaded and the said petition was filed after the original arbitration petition was fully argued, and then decided by pronouncement in open court. Also Read - The Pension Scheme for freedom fighters cannot be construed in a manner that the requirements prescribed are rendered a dead letter: Bombay HC According to Justice GS Patel allowing parties to take grounds in review pleas or in appeals that were not argued initi...

Lawgic Simplified

Search This Blog