Online content rules face criticism

Industry, civil scoeity unhappy with indirect internet censorship

samirsachdeva

Samir Sachdeva | May 17, 2011



The new IT rules 2011 notified by the government last month have become a subject of criticism not only from civil society organisations on privacy concerns but also from the industry for making the intermediaries liable for the user-posted content.

The department of information technology (DIT) in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (zg) of subsection (2) of section 87 read with sub-section (2) of section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, has framed these rules. Section 79 authorises the government to define due diligence which an intermediary needs to follow while offering services but the government has gone far beyond that.

As per the new rules the intermediary has to inform the users not to host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, update or share any information that belongs to another person; is grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, paedophilic, libellous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically objectionable, disparaging, relating or encouraging money laundering or gambling, or otherwise unlawful in any manner whatever; harm minors in any way; infringes any patent, trademark, copyright or other proprietary rights; violates any law for the time being in force; deceives or misleads the addressee about the origin of messages; impersonate another person; contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programs designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer resource; threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states, or public order or causes incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence or prevents investigation of any offence or is insulting any other nation.

Further, the intermediaries have to appoint a grievance officer who can look into complaints on above parameters. These intermediaries have to remove a comment within 36 hours in case of complaint. In this case the user content generator will suffer as the intermediary will not give him opportunity to present his point of view and remove the content within 36 hours on individual complaint as per the new IT rules. 

The language of these rules (for example, a phrase like ‘objectionable content’) is open to widespread interpretation and put a huge responsibility on the intermediary. The rules, some argue, go against the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression. It will also increase compliance cost of industry and for intermediaries like Google, Rediff, Facebook, Yahoo, Twitter, YouTube, eBay, newspaper websites, matrimonial websites and so on. The information flow is so huge that it is practically impossible for the intermediary to monitor it. Also the user content has to be removed within 36 hours of complaint without listening to the user point-of-view will harm freedom of speech and expression.

The intermediaries are just providing a platform for users to post their views and holding them responsible for third party contents may not be in best interests of free speech.
 

Comments

 

Other News

How Rafi, Raj Kapoor helped pave the way for a great uranium deal

There`s a certain moment in diplomacy that`s too personal to be captured in a communiqué, too small to make the front page, but more revealing than the front page. This week, prime minister Narendra Modi reached Tashkent and, amid the pomp of state visits, managed to evoke the old Bollywood tunes

Distinguishing Fish 1 and Fish 2: The pragmatism behind India’s WTO ratification

 India became the 123rd WTO member to ratify the multilateral Agreement on Fisheries subsidies (AoFS) when it deposited the Instrument of Acceptance for Phase 1 on July 20, 2026. The ratification is restricted to disciplining Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing (IUU), protection for overfished

The 7% growth problem: Why the next 7% will be harder

India has become accustomed to hearing the 7% growth number. It is now less a milestone than an expectation. Yet the paradox is becoming clearer: maintaining 7% growth may be considerably harder than achieving it once. India’s real GDP grew 7.7% in FY2025–26, following growth of 6.5% in FY202

The Constitution cannot be altered: Justice Abhay Oka

Justice Abhay Oka, who retired from the Supreme Court in May 2025, has said that the Constitution of India cannot be altered. Explaining the landmark Kesavananda Bharati judgment (1973) on the basic structure of the Constitution, he said, “This is one judgment that has saved democracy in India.&rdq

How the flora and fauna evolved in the Indian subcontinent

Mammals of India  By A.J.T. Johnsingh and P.O. Nameer HarperCollins India in association with Bombay Natural History Society  

India`s renewable race is moving beyond megawatts

When Shell bought Sprng Energy in 2022, India`s renewable energy market appeared to offer precisely what global energy majors were seeking: scale, growth and a place in one of the world`s largest energy transitions. Four years later, Shell is selling the same business to Aditya Birla Group for an enterpris

Upcoming Conferences



-->

Archives

Current Issue

Opinion

Facebook Twitter Google Plus Linkedin Subscribe Newsletter

Twitter