Sub-Articles 1 and 3 of Article 9 of the new laws are “clearly unreasonable” and “indefinite and broad terms” will result in the cooling off of liberty. Editors’ Speeches and Statements
Supreme Court Judge Dinknar Data and Judge G.S. In 2021, Kulcarni put an end to these two information technology (medium guidelines and digital media code of conduct) regulations, saying they appeared to violate applicants’ constitutional right to freedom of expression and expression. Under Article 19.
Disagreements in democracy are very important … For proper governance of the government, it is healthy to invite all critics in the public service for the coordinated development of the country, but under the laws of 2021 there will be one. You have to think twice before criticizing such a person, even though the author and the publisher have good reasons to do so. ”
The court ruled that anyone found guilty of such conduct would be subject to disciplinary action if the committee did not approve the criticism.
The order comes in the wake of legal issues such as The Leaflet and journalist Nickel Wagle’s claims that India’s new IT laws are unclear and could have a “cold effect” on citizens’ right to freedom of expression. Applicants said the rules exceeded “reasonable limits” on the limits of the main IT law and the freedom of speech and expression allowed under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution.
Also read the daily technical newspaper
Flickart and Amazon are in a tight spot between their businesses and government changes to ecommerce laws.
The rules are “clearly unreasonable and go beyond the IT law, its objectives and its provisions,” the court said.
Indian IT Laws 2021 Includes an appendix to the Code of Conduct that a publisher, journalist, medium or other online publisher must comply with. These standards include the Code of Conduct for the Indian Press Council (PCC) and the Cable TV Network (CTVN).
The Bombay High Court ruled that the IT law itself does not provide for such online content. Although the PCI and CTV standards were set out in separate legislation, the court ruled that the union was “illegally” attempting to “enforce” these rules.
Nowadays, if people are allowed to live on the Internet in the age of content, people will be deprived of their freedom of speech and expression and will be deprived of their freedom of thought. The sword of Damascus, ”said the Supreme Court.
However, the court refused to comply with Article 14, which provides for the establishment of a Committee of Ministers authorized to regulate online content and deal with complaints and violations, and Article 16 on the restriction of online content. Emergency.