This pertains to a case being heard regarding the constitutionality of the Information Technology (Amendment) Rules, 2023 in a PIL filed by the Association of Indian Magazines.
A bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale are hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the IT Rules.
On Friday,lawyer Gautam Bhatia argued before Bombay HC on behalf of Association of Indian Magazines in the challenge to IT Rules, 2023, which establishes a FCU that is empowered to identify “fake or false or misleading” information about any business of the government on online platforms including social media.
Bhatia submitted that free speech in India could be construed to be broader than free speech in the US, as the grounds to restrict free speech in India allowed for less discretion at the hands of the State, Radhika Roy, associate litigation counsel at Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) — which is providing legal assistance to Association of Indian Magazines —told ET.
“It was further stated that government’s defence of the amendment was based on distinction between low-value and high-value speech. However, the design of Article 19(1)(a) did not permit carving out an exception for presumably low-value speech,” she said.
Discover the stories of your interest
Bhatia relied on comparing South African jurisprudence and Shreya Singhal versus Union of India to submit that Article 19(2) was exhaustive when it came to delineating what kind of speech could be restricted, out of which “falsehood” was not a permissible ground, Roy explained.
This pertains to a case being heard regarding the constitutionality of the Information Technology (Amendment) Rules, 2023 in a PIL filed by the Association of Indian Magazines.
A bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale are hearing a batch of petitions challenging the constitutionality of the IT Rules.
On Friday,lawyer Gautam Bhatia argued before Bombay HC on behalf of Association of Indian Magazines in the challenge to IT Rules, 2023, which establishes a FCU that is empowered to identify “fake or false or misleading” information about any business of the government on online platforms including social media.
Bhatia submitted that free speech in India could be construed to be broader than free speech in the US, as the grounds to restrict free speech in India allowed for less discretion at the hands of the State, Radhika Roy, associate litigation counsel at Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) — which is providing legal assistance to Association of Indian Magazines —told ET.
“It was further stated that government’s defence of the amendment was based on distinction between low-value and high-value speech. However, the design of Article 19(1)(a) did not permit carving out an exception for presumably low-value speech,” she said.
Discover the stories of your interest
Bhatia relied on comparing South African jurisprudence and Shreya Singhal versus Union of India to submit that Article 19(2) was exhaustive when it came to delineating what kind of speech could be restricted, out of which “falsehood” was not a permissible ground, Roy explained.