NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Monday sought the Centre’s response to a PIL that challenged the constitutional validity of a provision of ‘Blocking Rules, 2009’ on the ground that it violated the right of content creators to be heard by authorities, who preferred to direct social media platforms to block content.
Appearing for PIL petitioner organisation ‘Software Freedom Law Centre’, senior advocate Indira Jaising told a bench of Justices B R Gavai and K Vinod Chandran that under Rule 9 of Blocking Rules, authorities had the freedom to issue notice either to the content creator or the social media platform which hosted the content. Be it Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or other social media platforms, authorities give blocking notices only to them to avoid giving reasons to the content creator for deciding to block certain posts, Jaising said.
“The arbitrary use of Rule 9 as an emergency provision to block user content without any prior notification leaves the originator of the content no mechanism of relief due to the lack of a notice, a reasoned order, and an opportunity to be heard. These rights are intrinsic to freedom of speech and expression, and the right to receive information, which can be granted to the originator even as the blocking order is in effect,” she said. Though the bench said it would have been appropriate for any content creator who was aggrieved by non-issuance of notice to him/her prior to blocking of content to move court, it decided to issue notice to Centre and sought its response in six weeks.
Jaising said the intermediary, which hosts the content, was under no obligation to seek aresponse or clarification from the content creator when authorities gave it notice for blocking certain content, thus leaving the content creator with no remedy to retrieve the content and repost it. “An intermediary is merely providing a platform for hosting information and has no means to understand or justify the originator’s defence against the blocking order, nor does the intermediary have a vested interest in defending the originator’s content. Such a process thus renders the blocking process inherently unfair and violative of the fundamental rights of the originator,” the petitioner said.