FAKE NEWS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (INTERMEDIARY GUIDELINES AND DIGITAL
MEDIA ETHICS CODE) RULES, 2021 AMENDMENT -
What's in the news?
● The
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology amended the Information
Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and
Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023:
Fake News Check Unit:
1. Appointment of Fact-check Unit:
● The
Central Government will allow a fact-check body appointed by it to label online
content related to the Union Government as “fake” or “misleading”.
2. Removal of Fake Content:
● If
any piece of information is marked as fake by the upcoming fact check unit,
online intermediaries will be required to take it down. Internet service
providers will have to block URLs of such content.
● According
to Ministry of Information and Broadcasting sources, the PIB fact check team
would contact appropriate government departments to determine if a piece of
news is fake or not, and then make a decision.
3. Safe Harbour Unit:
● Social
media companies have traditionally enjoyed legal immunity for content posted by
users, as the Information Technology Act, 2000 treats them as intermediaries.
4. Losing Safe Harbor Unit:
● Whenever
any news is notified as fake, social media companies will lose their “safe
harbour” for such content, opening them up to lawsuits or other legal action.
● Under
the IT Rules they lose this status if, among other things, they don’t have a
grievance officer for India, or don’t address user complaints on time.
● Additionally
now, with this amendment, they will lose their safe harbour immunity for posts
that have been flagged by the government as misinformation.
Online Gaming Industry:
1. Self Regulatory Body:
● The
amendment requires real money gaming services, where users deposit money in
expectation of winnings, to get themselves certified as “permissible” by a
Self-Regulatory Body (SRB) consisting of experts and industry members.
● The
amended rules cast additional obligations on online gaming intermediaries in
relation to online games involving real money.
● The
intermediary will also have to ensure that no advertisement or promotion of an
online game that is not a permissible online game, is hosted on its platform.
● The
Government may create a Board of Directors representing the online gaming
industry. It shall have experts, including online games users, educationists,
psychology or mental health experts, ICT experts etc.
● Example:
Fantasy sports sites, rummy and poker.
Significance of the New Amendment Rules:
1. Essential regulation:
● They
enforce greater diligence by online gaming and social media intermediaries in
respect of online games and fake or false misleading information related to Government
business.
2. Facilitate for the growth of Gaming Industry:
● The
Indian online gaming ecosystem will grow into a multi-billion-dollar industry
and be an important catalyst to India’s One trillion-dollar Digital economy
goal by 2025-26.
3. Uniform regulation across the country:
● The
amendment rules for the online gaming sector provides uniform regulations
across the country with the provision of setting up of a "self regulatory
body" by the government.
4. Compliance of Online Gaming Industry:
● All
the online gaming industries are now required to take permission from the self
regulatory body. This will ensure the legal compliance of the online gaming
industries across the country.
Concerns:
1. No consultation with stakeholders:
● Organizations
like the Editors Guild of India and the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) have
called the amendment “akin to censorship” and “legally contentious,” indicating
that they were either not consulted or that their views were not taken into
account.
2. Censorship of Press:
● The Editors Guilds of India has stated that these amendments will have deeply adverse implications for press freedom in the country. The determination of fake news in the sole hands of the government will result in censorship of the press.
3. No provision of right to appeal:
● There
is no mention of what will be the governing mechanism for such a fact checking
unit, the judicial oversight, the right to appeal.
4. Contradiction with existing guidelines:
● The
fact check unit could effectively issue a takedown order to social media
platforms and even other intermediaries across the internet stack, potentially
by passing the process statutorily prescribed under Section 69A of the IT Act,
2000.
● It
confers on the Central and State governments the power to issue directions “to
intercept, monitor or decrypt any information generated, transmitted, received
or stored in any computer resource”.
5. Not adherence to Supreme Court guidelines:
● Adherence
to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Shreya Singhal v
Union of India case, with respect to take down of content or blocking of social
media handles. All this is against principles of natural justice, and akin to
censorship.
6. Misuse of Power:
● The
power vested in the fact-checking unit could be misused to prevent free speech
and expression.
● The
government's takedown notices issued for critical opinion or commentary on
social media platforms can be seen as a way to suppress dissenting voices.