It’s an interesting situation, freedom of the press restricts him from watching a documentary. It is difficult to read and understand a mysterious law, a majority of MPs, the power goes into the hands of the Executive including the bureaucracy. A journalist will also realize how important is Article 19(1)(a) of our Constitution, and how draconian is Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 which was amended many a time. There is neither ‘information’ nor ‘technology’ or ‘law’. It remains high power concentrated in the hands of the government.
As per the Fundamental Right, under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression to all citizens, with some serious restrictions, like the right to express views, opinions, beliefs, and convictions through word of mouth, writing, printing, picturing, or in any other manner, the right to impart and receive information through any media, the freedom of the press and the freedom not to speak!
Restrictions on Freedom of the Press
However, this right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions by the state. These restrictions can be imposed for the following reasons:
- Sovereignty and integrity of India
- Security of the state
- Friendly relations with foreign states
- Public order, decency, or morality
- Contempt of court
- Defamation
The Supreme Court has held that freedom of speech includes the right to: Take part in sports, Hoist the national flag, access information, and Use social media platforms. However, hate speech and other unlawful content are not allowed.
The forum is the Supreme Court
Before the Supreme Court, the Applicant is the BBC. The problem is about ‘the freedom of the press’ in a documentary made by BBC. Union government’s decision to block the screening of a British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) documentary series to the second week of January 2025.
Suspended for watching?
The students of Rajasthan Central University in Ajmer were suspended for watching the film. The Jawaharlal Nehru University administration had issued an advisory to cancel a screening to maintain “peace and harmony” on the campus. The petitioners referred to reports about the detention of students and the presence of riot police on the Jamia Milia Islamia campus in Delhi.
More loyal than the king!
The petition filed by Mr. Ram and others argues that the Ministry, under Rule 16(3) of the Information Technology Rules, 2021 and Section 69(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000, had sent a legal request to Twitter India to block 50 tweets concerning and even containing links to the documentary. The tweets of Mr. Bhushan and Ms. Moitra were among those taken down. YouTube links of the video were blocked, the petition had said. In the hearing in February 2023, Advocate Singh for BBC cited instances “where officials more loyal than the king” blocked screening on university campuses and even rusticated students for watching the film.
Protection of freedom
“The contents of the BBC documentary and tweets of Moitra and Bhushan are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The content of the documentary series does not fall under any restriction on free speech or restrictions imposed under Section 69A of the IT Act,” the petition said. the Information Technology Act is the primary law in India that deals with cybercrime and electronic commerce.
The power and the right
The rights under the Constitution are the Right and the consequences.
Section 69A. Power to issue directions for blocking public access to any information through any computer resource.
(1) Where the Central Government or any of its officers specially authorized by it in this behalf is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to above, it may subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), for reasons to be recorded in writing, by order, direct any agency of the Government or intermediary to block for access by the public or cause to be blocked for access by the public any information generated, transmitted, received, stored or hosted in any computer resource.
(2) The procedure and safeguards subject to which such blocking for access by the public may be carried out, shall be such as may be prescribed.
(3) The intermediary who fails to comply with the direction issued under sub-section (1) shall be punished with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and also be liable to fine.
The right: Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 gives the Central and State governments the power to block online content and direct intermediaries to remove objectionable content:
What it does: The government can issue directions to block public access to information that is generated, transmitted, received, stored, or hosted in any computer resource. This includes content on websites, social media, and other online platforms.
When it can be used: The government can block content if it deems it a threat to India’s national security, sovereignty, public order, or friendly relations with foreign states.
Who it applies to: The government can issue directions to intermediaries, such as Internet Service Providers (ISPs), telecom service providers, web hosting services, search engines, and online marketplaces.
What happens if an intermediary doesn’t comply: An intermediary that fails to comply with a direction issued under Section 69A can be imprisoned for up to seven years and fined.
What the Rulers under the IT Act:
- Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information for Public) Rules, 2009
- Notification of Appointment of Designated Officer under section 69A of IT Act.
- Notification Dated 26.12.2023 regarding absence on account of leave or tour of Designated Officer.
- List of Nodal Officers from Ministries/Departments of Central Government under the provisions of Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
- List of Nodal Officers from States of India under the provisions of Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
What A top lawyer before the top court said:
The Supreme Court posted petitions challenging the Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the government, said he had “just realized” that the Centre was yet to file its counter to the petitions.
Fighting for right and then ‘time’.
Surprising! The Government had no time to file a counter to the claim of the freedom to exhibit the documentary. The Centre does not bother to prepare to fight a case without enough papers or files. Their Government advocate was asked for three weeks to file a counter.
Pendency of the people!
If the Supreme Court is using its valuable time, it simply says some more time. We can understand why the pendency is increasing, why and Government is strategic timing, etc. Top lawyers and highly paid corporate advocates of either side were fighting for ‘time’. One can understand the position of ‘pendency’ in the entire nation.
What can the Supreme Court do?
Except for granting the time sought, what can the apex court also do? Justice Sanjiv Khanna, granted time. Though the BBC sought the right to lawfully circulate the documentary as part of the right to freedom of speech and expression, they have to wait for the final decision.
Questioning the Government
Taking down this order against! Lawyers for the petitioners, senior advocate C.U. Singh strongly objected to the Government’s lapse in filing its counter even as Mr. Mehta sought more time to file its response. Mr. Singh said the court need not wait for the government’s reply as the case concerned a “take-down” order against the documentary. The BBC, N. Ram, Mahua Moitra, MP, and advocate Prashant Bhushan, had highlighted the citizens’ “fundamental right to view, form an informed opinion, critique, report on and lawfully circulate the contents of the documentary as right to freedom of speech and expression incorporates the right to receive and disseminate information”.
Government of UK vs Government of India
The petition is from a foreigner. It does not mean that a foreign company like BBC cannot claim the right to freedom of speech and press (including documentary cinema, video or TV programs, etc). It’s a fundamental right, which the entire universe endorsed such as press freedom, not connected with Indian state or foreign courts.
Finally, it is not a question of ‘right’ or ‘duty’, it ends with advice. Justice Khanna said the timelines must be adhered to by the parties”.
It’s a fundamental right, which the entire universe endorsed such as press freedom, not connected with Indian state or foreign courts. There is a constitutional right even if the applicant is a ‘citizen’, as he was working in India, on behalf of BBC. Finally, it is not a question of ‘right’ or ‘duty’, it ends with advice. Justice Khanna said the timelines must be adhered to by the parties”.
Dr. Madabhushi Sridhar Acharyulu, LLD, Ph.D, MCJ. Professor of Media Law, Mahindra University, Hyderabad
