The Bombay High Court has recently emphasized that the constitutionality of a rule is of utmost importance, regardless of the noble intentions behind it.
In a hearing presided over by Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale, petitions were filed challenging the constitutional validity of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2023.
These rules require social media intermediaries to censor or modify content related to the Central government if directed to do so by a government-mandated fact-checking unit (FCU). Senior advocate Navroz Seervai, representing Kunal Kamra and others, argued that the rules violate citizens’ freedom of speech and expression, and the court echoed that unconstitutional effects cannot be overlooked.
The bench also noted that intermediaries comply with government directives, which is why no intermediary company has petitioned against the rules. The court questioned whether it is the government’s role to dictate what should be removed from online platforms and emphasized the potential loss of safe harbor provisions if sites refuse to comply with the government’s direction.
The hearing will continue on July 8.
