ISPs, intermediaries urge Supreme Court for amendment of IT Act

NEW DELHI: Internet service providers and intermediaries on Tuesday staked their claim to the right to free speech and expression akin to that enjoyed by newspapers in the country and urged the Supreme Court to strike down sections of the Information Technology Act and rules as violative of the reasonable restrictions that could be imposed on free speech online.

The top court is adjudicating a host of petitions filed by several associations, activists and NGOs which have challenged the legality of the IT Act 2000, specifically sections 66A and 79, as also the rules framed thereunder – the IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Accountability of Information by the Public) Rules, 2009, and the IT (intermediaries guidelines) Rules, 2011.

These cases were filed in court after a series of arbitrary arrests under the law for posting objectionable content on social networking sites, including one against the Mumbai bandh in the wake of Bal Thackeray’s death posted by two students. There were other instances of misuse too which came in from Bengal where a professor was arrested for posting anti-Mamata Banerjee cartoons.

Taslima Nasrin was one of the petitioners though she has not pressed her plea. A case was lodged against her after she tweeted some remarks against clerics of her community.

These instances had forced the top court to clarify that no arrests would take place without sanction of senior top cops but this hasn’t deterred the misuse because of its sweeping ambit and vague definitions. Anyone can complaint against a post which was annoying or offensive to the government. No mental intent was necessary to make it an offence under the IT act.

Among the provisions that have been challenged are those which impose an obligation on the intermediaries to screen content for objectionable material and remove them.

The law imposes an obligation on them not to host information which falls in a broad no-no list, and also mandates users not to post content that is “grossly harmful”, “blasphemous”, “ethically objectionable”, “disparaging” or that which invaded others privacy.