In order to bring clarity to the impact of the Intermediary Guidelines on the activities of any Intermediary, we seek the views of all Cyber Law Aware professionals to take a few minutes to answer the 10 point poll below.
I will be happy if you can comment on this article indicating how many responses are true? which are false? and Why?
If possible, we shall send this survey result to the Mumbai High Court which will be hearing the petition of Mr Kunal Kamra. The High Court has sought an affidavit from the Government before April 19 to rule on the constitutional validity of the rule.
The ruling on this petition upholding the petition will have the effect of removing “Defamation” from the laws in India and will give a free license to any body to utter falsehood in the Social Media and any expectation of discipline in public speech would amount to “Self Censorship” and curtailment of “Freedom of Expression”.
In effect any ruling in favour of the petitioner would provide him immunity against Sections 499/500 of IPC.
We feel that such a decision is ultra vires the powers of the High Court as it will create a privileged position for Mr Kunal Kamra in law.
If upheld, every citizen of India will not only be free to make fun of every other person but also make fun of Courts or Judges because that also would be “Free Speech”.
Such a decision would create chaos in the Society and create a law and order situation in the country.
Hence the consequences of a hurried decision in this case including an interim stay would be considered as damaging the fabric of natural justice to the society.
I would like the Court to consider that the society is not an aggregation of criminals whose rights to free speech needs to be protected. Society is also an aggregation of honest peace loving citizens who are in larger numbers who have a right to truthful news.
Hence the Right of that part of the society which gets annoyed and disturbed by falsehood is as much important as the rights of the few stand up comedians who may be activists trying to use “Comedy” as a cover for their activism.
I request Cyber Law Specialists to give their views on the following questions:
Background:
Intermediary Guidelines issued under Section 79 of ITA 2000, Part II, Rule number 3(1)(b) states “the intermediary shall inform its rules and regulations, privacy policy and user agreement to the user…and shall make reasonable efforts to cause the user of its computer resource not to host, display, upload, modify, publish, transmit, store, update or share any information that,— ..deceives or misleads the addressee about the origin of the message or knowingly and intentionally communicates any misinformation or information which is patently false and untrue or misleading in nature 1[or is identified as fake or false by the fact check unit at the Press Information Bureau of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting or other agency authorised by the Central Government for fact checking or, in respect of any business of the Central Government, by its department in which such business is transacted under the rules of business made under clause (3) of article 77 of the Constitution];
Based on the above the following interpretations follow:
| Number | Question | Answer |
| 1 | The obligation of the Intermediary is to keep the user informed about the Do’s and Dont’s in the interest of the society | True/False |
| 2 | Reasonable efforts mean that the notice is prominently displayed and an affirmative confirmation is obtained from the user. | True/False |
| 3 | Take reasonable efforts to cause the user not to host, display, upload modify, publish, transmit, store, update, or share information does not mean forced taking down of content | True/False |
| 4 | Sub section 3 (1) (b)(v) means that the notification should include that the user does not intentionally communicate any misinformation which is patently false and untrue or misleading | True/False |
| 5 | Sub section 3 (1) (b)(v)means that the published policy and Terms of Service should include a note that the user does not intentionally communicate any misinformation which is identified as fake or false by the fact check unit at the Press Information Bureau of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting or other agency authorised by the Central Government for fact checking or, in respect of any business of the Central Government, by its department in which such business is transacted under the rules of business made under clause (3) of article 77 of the Constitution | True/False |
| 6 | Sub section 3 (1) (b)(v) does not mean that the Factcheck unit to be appointed by the Government will issue Takedown notices | True/False |
| 7 | The FactCheck Unit at the Press Information Bureau or other agency authorized by the Central Government is primarily meant for fact checking in respect of any business of the Central Government | True/False |
| 8 | The FactCheck Unit at the Press Information Bureau or other agency authorized by the Central Government may be entrusted with the fact checking also in respect of any private website | True/False |
| 9 | The FactCheck can be clarified even by departments of the Government in respect of their specified business | True/False |
| 10 | The FactCheck unit presently run as a Twitter Hashtag #PIBFactCheck or any new unit to be designated under the guideline does not bar any other organization to run a similar service in the private sector. | True/False |
‘Centre judge & prosecutor in its own cause’ — why Kunal Kamra has challenged amended IT rules in HC (msn.com)
