- The freedom of expression and right to dissent is one ticklish issue that garners attention most often than not. Of course, the Constitution is very clear about there being no absolute rights accorded to citizens as regards freedom of expression and dissent. Over the last few years, scores of civil society members, NGOs, opposition political leaders, and concerned individuals have expressed grave concerns at muzzling dissenting voices by the present ruling dispensation. Taking umbrage under the draconian Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and outdated Sedition Laws have seen a dramatic usage but hardly resulting in cases being upheld by the courts.
PC: HEMANT SINGH
- The prevailing situation vis-à-vis voicing dissent and criticizing some of the policies of the Union Government resulting in the clamping of these laws has only contributed to vitiating the extremely unpleasant atmosphere. The courts are over time bombarded with a slew of litigations seeking relief from different corners. Against this backdrop, emerges the welcome news that the Bombay high court has stayed part of the new, sweeping IT rules aiming to control the news media along with social media and OTT platforms. The court flagged the threat to free expression and the fact that as rules, they are subordinate legislation that goes beyond the remit of the IT Act itself.
- For the uninitiated, the digital news and current affairs publishers had challenged these rules citing the right to equality, free expression, and the right to the profession since these petitions are pending in various courts. The Bombay HC’s stay is a temporary reprieve until the question is settled in the coming days. Two controversial rules viz. 9 (1) entailing digital media publishers adhering to the code of ethics offering subjective notions of half-truths, decency, and good taste, and Rule 9 (3) aiming to set up a three-tier grievance redressal committee ultimately empowering governments to minutely regulate all media contest have been stayed for now.
PC:
- There is fear amongst the publishers that these rules allow governments to initiate unilateral action against any platform and ensure that others fall in line. Note that the court’s emphasis on media independence and the value of free speech as well as dissent is sorely needed. There is a reason to resist these rules as the media and the courts are foundational to a liberal democracy which we are proud to always claim. Besides, unlike social media platforms, the news is already regulated by the Press Council, the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, and the National Broadcasting Standards Authority, respectively.
- To its credit, the courts have consistently protected media rights with their interpretation of Article 19(a) as part of the fundamental right to free speech and expression. The Bombay HC has partly checked the IT rules for now, but there is a definite case where the principle must be clearly affirmed in the future. Make no mistake, whatever attempts undertaken to dilute the news media’s independence are no less than a threat to a vibrant democracy that the nation has earned after hard-fought struggles. In the 75th year of Independence, it is imperative to provide adequate leeway for free sharing of opinions, even if it’s contrary to the government’s viewpoints.
