Delhi High Court seeks response from Centre on plea challenging new IT Rules

The Delhi High Court Thursday sought the Centres reply on a plea challenging the new IT Rules for allegedly being in gross disregard of the fundamental rights of free speech and privacy of users of social media intermediaries such as WhatsApp Instagram and TwitterA bench of Justice Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh issued notice to the Centre on advocate Uday Bedis plea contending that the new IT rules are unconstitutional and antithetical to the fundamental principles of democracyGranting time to the Centre to file its counter affidavit the court listed the plea for further hearing on September 13In his petition Bedi has argued that the social media intermediaries cannot be given the power to decide on the basis of a complaint or otherwise as to which information is liable to taken downThe petition states that the new Information Technology Rules themselves do not define how the social media intermediaries would voluntarily take action against a complaint without peeping into all conversations over the SMI platform and that it is not possible to trace the first originator of a message without decrypting all the private information that is stored published hosted or transmitted through the platformWhile giving powers in excess of the powers given under the parent legislation the IT Act to voluntarily remove access to information that does not conform to Rule 31b the Impugned Rules have allowed the social media platforms to place the users under constant surveillance which is a gross breach of the right to privacy the petition readsAlso read New IT rules take care Supreme Court on plea seeking CBI NIA probe against TwitterThe rules also mandate that even if the person is not under any investigation for violation of the rules the intermediary has to retain his or her data without any justification which is a gross violation of the right to privacy of the user the petition further saidEmphasising that no appellate procedure has been provided for under the rules against the decision of a Grievance Officer andor the Chief Compliance Officer Bedi in his plea has added that wide powers to restrict free speech of citizens have been placed in the hands of private individuals which is shockingly disproportionate and completely unjustifiedThere is also no mandate that the author of the allegedly objectionable information has to be heard before deciding any complaint against himher it is statedThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever