Arbitrary use of censorship provisions against ‘intermediaries’ by the government on the pretence of security, sovereignty and public order has now become a trend to silence any dissenting opinion of the public.
—
RECENTLY, a video of a teacher directing her students to slap a Muslim classmate went viral.
The video, in which the teacher was goading on the students with communal remarks, was reported to have been shot at a school in Muzaffarnagar’s Khubbapur village.
A first information report was lodged against the teacher under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The viral video attracted widespread condemnation against the teacher for teaching her students to hate each other only in the name of religion at such a young age. Rightfully so.
However, it was the aftermath of the incident that caught the author’s attention.
When the video of the teacher directing her students to slap the Muslim kid surfaced online, it suddenly became viral.
People who shared the video or posted their comments on the issue have complained that their posts and tweets were blocked by the microblogging platform X (formerly known as Twitter).
Shadab Khan, who had posted the video, complained that his account on X was withheld.
Similarly, actress Urmila Matondkar, journalists Rohini Garg and Gargi Rawat complained that their tweets were withheld from Indian users of the platform, based on a “legal demand”.
Similarly, actress Urmila Matondkar, journalists Rohini Garg and Gargi Rawat complained that their tweets were withheld from Indian users of the platform, based on a “legal demand”.y.
This is not the first time tweets and posts on X have been withheld or directed to be removed by the State. Time and again, the State resorts to censorship and the curtailment of the citizens’ freedoms, especially in cases involving religious minorities.
In recent years, there has been a lot of public discussion on intermediary liability and internet freedoms.
According to Section 2(1)(w) of the Information Technology Act 2000 (IT Act), “intermediary” with respect to any particular electronic records, means any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that record or provides any service with respect to that record and includes telecom service providers, network service providers, internet service providers, web hosting service providers, search engines, online payment sites, online-auction sites, online marketplaces and cyber cafes.
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, have brought social media platforms within the ambit of intermediaries.
Companies like X and Meta must appoint a compliance officer responsible for ensuring compliance with the IT Rules.
Section 69A of the IT Act allows the government to direct intermediaries to block content that may be a threat to the sovereignty and integrity of the country, security of the state, friendly relations with foreign states, or public order.
Also read: SC restrains Assam police from arresting advocate under UAPA for FB post allegedly praising Taliban
In addition, the intermediaries must take down posts for which a notice has been received within 24 hours.
Non-compliance with the provision leads to liability for the social media intermediary, including fine and imprisonment.
If the company loses its intermediary status, it will be equally responsible for unlawful content posted on its platform as the person who has posted it.
A pattern has also emerged wherein the State has continuously attempted to exercise control over netizens’ freedom of speech and expression by stifling dissent, thereby pointing to a concerning lack of transparency and accountability.
The Muzaffarnagar incident does not seem to fall within the ambit of this provision but still users who posted about the incident or wrote their opinions have had their tweets or accounts curtailed.
What is “violative” content as per Section 69A?
Under Section 69A of the IT Act, the government can order the blocking of content in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India.
Content that might incite the commission of any cognisable offence can be flagged by authorities. Thus, intermediaries may be directed to remove third-party content from their platforms.
The Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009 entail the procedure for the execution of this provision.
In 2022, Twitter (now X) filed a petition in the Karnataka High Court seeking to set aside blocking orders of the Union government requiring the platform to ban individual accounts and remove content that was “violative”.
A pattern has also emerged wherein the State has continuously attempted to exercise control over netizens’ freedom of speech and expression by stifling dissent, thereby pointing to a concerning lack of transparency and accountability.
Most of the impugned content was journalistic or political. It was argued by Twitter (now X) that the content it was asked to take off did not fall within the ambit of Section 69A of the IT Act.
The same principle applies to the viral video of the Muzaffarnagar school. It is unclear what part of the video the government has found objectionable enough to warrant its seeking to block the transmission of the video on X.
In the video, the teacher, who was later identified as Tripti Tyagi, can be heard making statements that pointed out the student’s religious identity while instructing her other students to “hit him harder”.
It is worth noting that the video is not manipulated or doctored. Rather, it throws light on the bigoted frame of mind of an educator who is responsible for training the next generation of Indians on life and society.
Since users might have felt it as their duty to highlight the gruesome act so that action could be taken against the teacher and to also initiate a larger conversation on how to keep the spreading disease of communalism out of schools and young minds.
So when their tweets and accounts were blocked for merely posting the video, users asked how their posts threatened the security of the nation or public order.
As per the policy of the X platform, it can withhold access to any content in a region if the content has been deemed illegal in that jurisdiction.
But in all other regions except that particular jurisdiction, the account is accessible as long as it is not in violation of the internal rules and guidelines of X.
As tweeted by Shadab Khan, his posts were only inaccessible in India and not elsewhere.
When outrage arises in response to an incident that paints a sorry picture of the condition of religious minorities in India, the concerned public take it to such social media platforms to raise the issue and express their discontent.
It is not exactly clear how bringing these incidents to the attention of others falls within the four-fold threshold of content that can be restricted, as per Section 69A of the IT Act.
The government’s obsession with censorship
Multiple studies and common perception suggest that restriction of freedom of speech and expression have been growing in India in recent years and it has become more and more difficult to express one’s views freely or to use platforms, including social media, to air those views.
India was one of the leading countries seeking removal of content from Twitter (now X) in 2022.
After the takeover of the Twitter (X) platform by Elon Musk, government Orders and requests to take down content have rarely not been complied with.
Back in 2021, during the Covid pandemic, Twitter censored 52 tweets that criticised the government over the handling of the second wave in India.
Back in 2021, during the Covid pandemic, Twitter censored 52 tweets that criticised the government over the handling of the second wave in India.
Also read: Power in a tweet
It has become routine for the government to send blocking Orders to intermediaries as soon as it faces criticism.
What is even more ironic is that platforms block even content that mentions or criticises the blocking of other content.
Platforms like X have occasionally challenged such Orders but to no avail.
Only recently, X appealed against the decision of the Karnataka High Court, as it fears that the government would only issue more such Orders, thereby potentially expanding the scope of censorship.
Conclusion
Indian authorities have increasingly resorted to censorship as soon as negative but verified incidents come under unfavourable public scrutiny.
The ‘notice and takedown’ regime in India is a looming threat to the freedom of speech and expression of the various users of social media.
Intermediaries are essential for netizens of India to express opinions that might not always be to the liking of the government.
Despite the various amendments and developments in the Intermediary Rules and Guidelines Framework of India, the problem of censorship of free expression persists as an issue.
The Internet Freedom Foundation, which works towards the protection of netizens’ freedom of speech and expression, has recently filed a right to information (RTI) application on the matter.
The RTI requests the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to seek more information on the recent blocking Orders issued by it to X.
It is critical to recognise that censorship in response to public outrage significantly hinders the right to freedom of speech and expression.
Indian authorities have increasingly resorted to censorship as soon as negative but verified incidents come under unfavourable public scrutiny.
India must rethink its legal framework in order to strike a better balance between protecting national interests and respecting fundamental principles of free speech and expression.
Allowing platforms like X to act as intermediaries for open discourse and dissenting opinions, even if they are critical of the government, is crucial for a democracy.
