Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice GS Patel and Justice Neela Gokhale on Thursday while hearing the plea challenging amended IT Rules questioned if members of a political party moving to another party in Maharashtra be part of the government business.

“The rule gives no guidelines about what can and can't be done. Is a political action, for example, in Maharashtra party members move from one party to another. Will it be part of the business of the government?” the bench questioned.

The question was posed by the division bench while hearing a plea challenging the amended IT Rules establishing a fact check unit. The high court is hearing petitions filed by stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra, the Editors Guild of India, 28 regional channels and the Association of Indian Magazines.

The bench made the remark while Advocate Shadan Firasat was arguing on behalf of the Editors Guild of India.

The division bench also questioned if the rules would be applicable to print media as well as digital media. Further, the bench asked if the same content is printed on print and digital then why will action be taken only against one.

“If someone takes a picture from print media and posts it on Twitter then whether Twitter will be asked to take it down and nothing will be done about print media?” the bench questioned.

Advocate Farasat responded to it and said that Article 19 protects not just content but also the circulation of information.

“My submission is that under 19 I have right not just on content but also circulation. Circulation is part of freedom of speech and expression. The rule will infringe upon that. What they are saying is 50k people who read Indian Express and TOI may have it but lakhs of others who read print they won't have it,” Farasat responded.

Farasat further added that the Editors Guild would put up the content of the government's side as well as the other side. He emphasized that it is their ethical norm to put up both sides of the story but what the government was trying to do is allow the circulation of only the government's version.

The 4 petitions before the Bombay High Court had challenged the amended IT Rules which established a fact check unit.

During one of the previous hearings, the bench also observed that the terms 'fake', 'false', 'misleading', and 'government business' were not adequately defined, and no clear boundaries were established for their usage.

During the arguments made by Senior Advocate Navroz Seervai the high court had questioned if it is permissible in law to have a discretionary authority like a fact-checking unit.

"Is it permissible in law for a statute to have unbound discretionary authority like this? On its own plainly read, what are the limits and boundaries of these four words?" the bench questioned

Case title: Kunal Kamra & Ors vs UOI