Parl Panel Recommendations to IT Act Leave Online Activists Divided

The recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee on Subordinate Legislation on Intermediary Rules which has lambasted the government for its laws governing Internet use, has got mixed reactions from advocates of Internet free speech. The Committee found faults with the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 including the implementation of the highly controversial section 66A of the IT Act which led to a spate of arrests last year. According to section 66A, any person who sends, by means of a computer resource or a communication device (a) any information that is grossly offensive or has menacing character; (b) any information which he knows to be false, but for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred, or ill will, persistently by making use of such computer resource or a communication device (c) any electronic mail or electronic mail message for the purpose of causing annoyance or inconvenience or to deceive or to mislead the addressee or recipient about the origin of such messages, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and with fine.

The Committee chaired by P Karunakaran addressed criticism that the absence of solid definitions for terms such as "offensive", "grossly harmful", "blasphemous", "obscene", "hateful", or "racially, ethnically objectionable" and "disparaging", the implementation of section 66A was open to misuse. "In order to remove ambiguity/misgiving in the minds of people, the definition of those terms used in different laws should be incorporated at one place in the aforesaid rules for convenience of reference by the intermediaries and general public," noted the Committee. "The terms which are not defined in any other statute (law), should be defined and incorporated in the rules to ensure that no new category of crimes or offences is created in the process of delegated legislation," it added.

Sunil Abraham, executive director at the Bangalore based Centre for Internet and Society, said that the changes recommended by the Committee would bring the IT Act in parity with the safeguards guaranteed in the constitution. "The standing committee has asked the government to make changes to the rules to ensure that the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and privacy are safeguarded, and that the principles of natural justice are respected when a person's freedom of speech or privacy are legitimately curtailed," he said. CIS was one of the organisations which submitted evidence to the Committee.

However, not everyone was as optimistic on the recommendations. While the Committee's move to define terms is welcome, there are chances that the definition of terms itself can be vague or open to interpretation, noted Medianama. "Can the Indian government be trusted to actually ensure that the IT rules are open to interpretation? Frankly, in our opinion, the following terms should be removed: grossly harmful, blasphemous, obscene, hateful, or racially, ethnically objectionable, disparaging. The way things are working right now, if the government wants to mess with you, they can. And they're creating provisions that will allow them to do that. If the law is vague, the rule of law doesn't necessarily mean it will be used to protect and not harm people."

Last year, the arrest of two girls in Palghar, Maharashtra, which caused massive outrage, highlighted many of the problems with the IT Act and section 66A in particular. Shaheen Dhadha, was arrested for criticising the shut down of her city because of Bal Thackeray's death in a Facebook status message, as was her friend who had 'liked' it. A Jadavpur University professor was arrested under the IT Act for lampooning West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee. A Puducherry businessman was booked when he tweeted that P Chidambaram's son had amassed more wealth than even Robert Vadra. However, it is not only the government which misuses section 66A. There has also been a spurt in cases where citizens have used the vague wording of the IT Act to target fellow citizens and authorities, as this Firstpost story noted.