The government today said it would evolve a consensus on rules for controlling internet content after talking to various stakeholders including MPs and industry representatives. This assurance was given by Telecom Minister Kapil Sibal in the Rajya Sabha after an opposition member moved a motion seeking annulment of rules aimed at regulating internet content notified by the government in April 2011. The motion,moved by P Rajeeve (CPI-M),for annulling the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules,2011,was later defeated by a voice vote. "My assurance to the House is that I will request MPs to write letters to me objecting to any specific words. I will then call a meeting of the members as well as the industry and all stakeholders. We will have a discussion and whatever consensus emerges,we will implement it," Sibal said. Justifying the rules,the minister said "these are sensitive issues" as most internet companies were registered abroad and not subjected to Indian laws. Amid a raging row over the need for regulating internet content,a local court recently directed several internet giants to remove objectionable contents from Indian websites. Rajeeve had said that the rules were ultra vires of the provisions of the parent IT Act and violated the freedom of speech and expression and demanded they be done away with. Leader of Opposition Arun Jaitley noted that it is extremely difficult,if not impossible,to defy technology and that the days of withholding information have gone. He urged the minister to "reconsider the language of restraints" to prevent its misuse. He said he had no objection to the architecture of the Bill but felt "there is need for a balanced approach". The IT Rules of 2011 stipulate that websites "cannot host information that is a grossly harmful,harassing,blasphemous,defamatory,obscene,pornographic,paedophilic,libelous,invasive of privacy,hateful,or racially,ethnically objectionable,disparaging,relating or encouraging money laundering or gambling,or otherwise unlawful in any manner whatever,harm minors or infringes any patent,trademark,copyright or other proprietary right." Sibal said,"These rules were cleared by the committee of sub-ordinate legislations and it was not as if Parliament is not overseeing these rules. The rules were also discussed with industry bodies like CII before being brought (to the House)." He asserted the rules were in the context of the substantive provisions of the Act and cited several provisions in support of his point. He brushed aside arguments that they run contrary to the Act,saying they had "no substance". Sibal assured the House that the government did not believe in censorship and regulation of free speech. Earlier,Jaitley complimented Rajeeve for bringing to their notice that Parliament had a role in not just enacting new laws but also in overseeing and supervising subordinate legislations. Lauding the role of technology,Jaitley said,"Had the internet existed in 1977,emergency would have been a fiasco." He noted that internet,that came by virtue of technology,had the danger of inciting hate speech and frenzy in society and needs to be restrained. Rajeeve said,"I am not against any regulation on internet but I am against any control on internet. In control,there is no freedom. These rules attempt to control internet and curtail the freedom of expression." He said,"the rules violate the principles of natural justice. This is a violation of the Constitution."
