As Sena MLA alleges social media ‘misuse’ by Kunal Kamra and others, HC suggests approaching competent forum

In his plea, Samant sought directions for the Union Ministry of Information and Technology, Google and standup comedian Kunal Kamra.

The division bench was informed by Samant’s lawyer that the MLA was “disturbed by alarming trends where influential people under the garb of free speech are spreading misinformation and launching unwarranted attacks on the judiciary and shaking very foundation of Indian democratic system”.

Seeking to cite an example of alleged misuse of social media, Samant said that comedian Kunal Kamra was a respondent in the case. An FIR was registered against Kamra last month for cracking an allegedly objectionable joke on Deputy Chief Minister Shinde during a standup comedy show.

Chief Justice Aradhe orally remarked that while certain content may amount to misuse of social media as per the petitioner, others may see it as an exercise of their freedom of speech, adding that the petitioner cannot determine what it is.

Senior advocate Darius Khambata, representing Kamra, said the law prescribes sufficient remedies to the petitioner to complain against certain content and seek its blocking.

The court referred to provisions of the Information Technology Act 2000 and the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules 2009.

“Thus, it is evident (from Rule 6) that an aggrieved person has the forum available under the 2009 Rules to seek redressal of blocking of content and even in cases of emergency, to seek blocking of information under Rule 8,” the bench noted.

The bench added that the MLA had not invoked the “efficacious remedy” but approached the court instead, “seeking the relief in wide terms, which cannot be granted.”

The bench noted that Rule 3 (1) (b) (v) of the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021, which allowed the government to establish a fact-check unit to identify “fake news” on social media, was struck down by the high court last year.

The high court had passed a decision with a majority of judges (2 out of 3) ruling against the provision and an appeal against the order is pending before the Supreme Court.

Referring to another prayer in the petition, the high court further said the formation of the social media vigilance and censor committee against content violating reasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expressions provided under Article 19 (2) of the Constitution was in the “realm of policy decision” and that a direction cannot be issued outside the scope of the Rules.

“The petitioner himself is a lawmaker and it is open for him to take appropriate action if so advised,” it noted.

The bench said the relief sought by Samant—a direction for the IT Ministry to disclose steps taken to implement the IT Act and 2021 Rules—”is couched in general and in very wide terms”. However, it granted him liberty to approach the authority concerned.

The high court, disposing of the petition, said Samant could seek information about the disposal of complaints made before the competent authority about the misuse of social media and digital platforms for commercialised speech.