Is there a UN resolution for ‘internet as a basic human right’? Not really

Late last month, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) passed a resolution affirming that, among other things, rights which are available to people offline must also be protected online, in particular- the right to freedom of expression..However, this is not the first time that the UNHCR has adopted a resolution on online rights. Previous resolutions, which were adopted by consensus in June 2012 and June 2014 which sought to extend human rights to the digital world..But the latest resolution goes a step further by,.‘Stressing the importance of an accessible and open Internet to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, as well as in calling for accountability for extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detentions and other violations against people for expressing themselves online.’.In essence, the principal aim of this resolution appears to be a global condemnation of online censorship. However, does this mean that the internet is a “basic human right”, as has been reported (and subsequently corrected).In one word, no..India on Internet rights.India doesn’t really hold a good reputation when it comes to upholding of rights of citizens over the Internet. Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code for example allows a district magistrate or any other executive magistrate (empowered by the state government in this behalf) to pass an order directing any person to abstain from a certain act, for the purpose of ‘maintaining public tranquility’..This authority, which has been extensively used to curtail unlawful assemblies, has only recently been applied to prevent Internet Service Providers from providing services in particular regions. This may be seen as direct violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and expression, as Internet stoppage isn’t necessarily always a result of ‘immediate threat’. However, the judiciary has repeatedly upheld the right provided under this section as necessary for law and order situations..As reported by Software Freedom Law Centre, there have been thirty Internet shutdowns in India since 2013, out of which 10 have been in 2016 alone..The UN Resolution.The resolution is a fine document which discusses how the Internet can be used as a tool for achieving several goals such as the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal and digital literacy for facilitating the goal of right to education. It further encourages States to promote and facilitate international cooperation aimed at the development of media and information and communication facilities and technologies in all countries.The misreports suggested that India was a part of the League of Nations, which were against ‘Internet freedom’. This so-called league which India had become a part of included, among others, China, Russia, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam..However, these reports are inaccurate inasmuch as they hint at India’s alliance with this league to suppress Internet freedom. As the UNHRC notes, the resolution was adopted without a vote (with oral revision), which implies that India never ‘voted against’ the resolution; it simply supported certain amendments which were moved by other countries..As reported by the Wire, there were in particular four amendments made to the Resolution which were somewhat seen as an attempt to weaken the Resolution. These amendments were moved on 29 June and the oral revisions were included on 30 June. The amendments, which were moved primarily by China and Russia sought to shift the focus from censorship to online privacy, which has historically been viewed as a sensitive issue for the USA given the whole Edward Snowden episode..These four amendments were:.L-85: Introduced by China and Russia.This amendment sought to include a reference to fighting against exploitation of children. It has been reported that the consultations were carried out too late and the Russia withdrew this amendment. However, the final text of the Resolution includes this reference..L-86: Introduced by China and Russia.This amendment may be seen as one which aimed at diluting the language of the resolution with regards to the freedom of expression online..While on the one hand it sough to include the endangered right to privacy, on the other it sought to remove reference to freedom of expression across boundaries by the means of any medium of choice. The inclusion of right to privacy cannot come at the expense of elimination of cross-border freedom of expression. Irked by this inclusion of freedom which is granted ‘regardless of frontiers’, an attempt was made by China and Russia to remove this provision while trying to bring in right to privacy on to the table. The Council rejected this amendment with 15 in favour, 23 against and 9 abstentions..L-87: Introduced by China, Iran and Russia.This amendment sought to replace the words ‘human rights based approach’ with ‘comprehensive and integrated approach’. While the Council added the word ‘comprehensive’ to make it ‘comprehensive human rights based approach’, the deletion of the term ‘human rights’ was rejected. Well, mostly because it’s the ‘Human Rights’ Council and an attempt to compromise on human rights wouldn’t (shouldn’t?) be acceptable. The Council rejected this amendment with 17 in favour, 25 against and 5 abstentions.L-88: Introduced by China, Iran and Russia.This amendment sought to restrict the freedom of access to Internet to the extent it would cause the dissemination of hate speech, xenophobia and racial intolerance through the Internet. This was seen as repetitive in nature as reasonable restrictions had already been covered in the text of the Resolution. The Council rejected this amendment with 18 in favour, 24 against and 5 abstentions..So what next?.All said and done, the recent UN resolution is a non-binding one. However, what this recent meeting has highlighted is the willingness of several countries to restrict Internet freedom..While India did not expressly oppose the move, it did partake in the attempt to limit the freedom on Internet, which is not very surprising given the number of Internet shutdowns this country has witnessed in the past few years. Voting for the resolution clearly means nothing; what is yet to be seen is which countries will actually incorporate the provisions of this resolution into their domestic laws..You may read a copy of the Resolution (with proposed amendments) here:.You may a read a copy of the Resolution (passed with oral revisions) here:.(Image: Source)