Syllabus: GS2/ Polity and Governance
Context
- The Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition filed by X Corp challenging the Indian government’s use of Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Sahyog Portal for content takedown orders.
About
- The company had argued that the powers exercised under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 were unconstitutional and that only Section 69A, along with the IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009, provided the lawful framework for content takedown.
- Section 79(3)(b) of India’s Information Technology Act, 2000, removes the “safe harbor” protection for intermediaries when they fail to take down unlawful content after receiving actual knowledge or a government notification about it.
What is the Court ruling?
- The court emphasised that information and communication have never been left unchecked, regardless of the medium.
- It cautioned against importing American free speech jurisprudence into the Indian constitutional context. The judgment reaffirmed that unlawful or illegal content does not enjoy the same protection as legitimate speech.
Need for Regulating Digital/Commercial Speech
- Protecting vulnerable groups: Derogatory remarks against persons with disabilities, minorities, or women perpetuate stigma.
- Regulations can ensure inclusivity and dignity in public discourse.
- Accountability of influencers: Influencers and comedians earn from monetised platforms. Their speech is not purely private; it is a public service with commercial stakes.
- Guidelines can create responsibility proportional to reach and influence.
- Preventing harm and disorder: Fake news, hate speech, and derogatory jokes can trigger violence or social unrest, reasonable limits may prevent escalation.
- Aligning with global trends: EU’s Digital Services Act and UK’s Online Safety Act already regulate harmful online content.
- India cannot remain unregulated when speech directly affects millions of internet users.
| Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression – Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution deals with the reasonable restrictions that can be placed on the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). – Conditions under which speech can be restricted by the state: 1. Security of the State, Public Order, Decency or Morality, Contempt of Court, Defamation, Incitement to Offense. – Right to Take Offense: Article 19(2) of the Constitution does not recognise offensive speech as a distinct category. 1. Therefore, the notion of a right to take offence lies beyond the ambit of constitutionally permissible limitations. – Constitutional Morality: It’s a nuanced, evolving concept, not an inherent sentiment. 1. Must be cultivated and developed over time. |
Source: HT
Next article
News In Short – 25 September, 2025
