[Breaking] Adherence to Code of Ethics under Rule 9 of IT Rules stayed by Bombay High Court (for now)

The Bombay High Court has stayed the operation of Rule 9 (1) and (3) of the recently notified Information Technology (Guidelines for intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules, 2021). (AGIJ Promotion Of Nineteenonea Media Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.).Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni passed the verdict in the pleas by digital news portal, Leaflet and a Mumbai Journalist Nikhil Mangesh Wagle who had approached the Court for an interim stay on the application of the IT Rules, 2021 till the Writ Petition challenging the Rules was decided..They observed that "Rule 9 was found to be an intrusion on the petitioner's rights under Article 19(1)(a)" holding that it "goes beyond the substantive law of the Information Technology Act". Rule 9 (1) provides for adherence to the Code of Ethics which is annexed to the IT Rules, 2021, whereas Rule 9 (3) provides for three tier structure for addressing the grievances made in relation to publishers. The Court stayed the implementation of Rule 9 subsections (1) and (3). .However the Court did not stay implementation of subsection (2) of Rule 9 which provides for consequential action in the event there is contravention of any law for the time being in force..On the challenge to Rule 14 of the Rules, the Court held opined that there is no immediate urgency as no interdepartmental (Oversight Mechanism) committee is constituted yet nor have the officers for the committee been appointed. The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court as and when such Oversight Mechanism Committee is set up. .Rule 16 provided for blocking of information which the Court observed was pari material to Rule 9 of the IT Rules of 2009. "Since it was not the petitioners case, that they were aggrieved by the Rule 9 of the 2009 Rules, we accordingly find no case is made out by the Petitioners for stay on the Rule 16", the Court further observed. .Both petitions claimed that the IT Rules, 2021 are contrary to the fundamental rights under Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and ultra vires the Information Technology (IT) Act.Another contention was that the IT Rules, 2021 had been issued after unlawfully delegating judicial powers to the executive and that it is an attempt to overrule a long line of precedents rendered by the Supreme Court..Submissions made during the hearing.Opposing the prayer for interim stay, Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh made three-fold submissions:That the prayers raised grievance against an Oversight Committee (internal committee of the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MIB)) which had not even been notified as of yet.That there had been no instance of any order or action having been taken against any organisation under the Rules.That the Rules had been notified in order to curb the spreading of fake news and legally prohibited content. .May lead to spread of fake news, illegal content: Central govt opposes stay on IT Rules 2021 before Bombay High Court.Senior Advocate Darius Khambata appearing for The Leaflet, argued that the new IT Rules curtailed and unconstitutionally restricted the freedom of press in India.The rules were "seeking to effectively monitor and censor speech in the internet by a different Ministry, the most draconian law on free speech of recent times" he remarked. He prayed for an immediate stay on the rules claiming they had a chilling effect on free speech..The Court had in an earlier hearing expressed its inclination to grant an interim stay on the Rules for the reason that "operation of the rules was causing them (the Petitioners) to live in constant fear."They were required to continue engaging in their activities with "a sword hanging over their head". .While reserving the pleas, the Bench mused whether new guidelines could be issued when there are pre-existing guidelines and if the present Rules were an attempt to bring a substantive law through delegated legislation.The Bench also stated that by publishing the Rules with Code of Ethics, the government had essentially published something through delegated legislation which was already available with the parent Act. ."Do IT Rules 2021 entrench the parent Act:" Bombay High Court reserves verdict.The Bench issued notice and directed the Centre to file a detailed reply on merits of the case within 3 weeks.Matter posted for hearing on September 27, 2021..[Read order]