wordpress blog stats
Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

BJP’s Tejasvi Surya urges govt to repeal intermediary liability protections

BJP leader Tejasvi Surya has urged the government to repeal safe harbour protections guaranteed to internet intermediaries in India, declaring the protections as “unconstitutional” and ultra vires to the IT Act, 2000. He called for new rules to govern social media platforms, to protect fundamental rights, “especially those of the nationalistic approach”. 

Surya brought this up during the zero hour of Lok Sabha on Wednesday evening. 

The Intermediary Guidelines, while laying down what content platforms can prohibit, “go far beyond” the scope of what can reasonably be restricted under free speech laws, Surya said. “They are problematic because they empower private foreign enterprises performing essentially a public function to act as censors of free speech without Government oversight, thus effectively and severely impacting safeguards of fundamental right to free speech,” he declared.

These guidelines are not only ultra vires the parent statute, but also unconstitutional as the grounds they provide for are so wide that they will fail the standards  of  constitutionality set out by the Supreme Court in Shreya Singhal case while striking down Section 66(A) of the IT Act Tejasvi Surya 

Surya said the trigger was the recent controversies regarding censure of free speech by Facebook, Twitter, and their affiliates in India. He said the controversy poses “significant constitutional challenge” and amounts to “unreasonable restriction of free speech” and illegal interference during elections. Facebook was recently accused of favouring BJP leaders and shielding hate speech made by them for fear of hurting its business prospects in India. Hate speech posted by BJP politicians, including T. Raja Singh and Shiladitya Dev, were left up on Facebook for years and not removed, as Surya seems to be suggesting. In fact, it was left up at the intervention of Facebook’s top policy executives in India. 

Surya was suggesting that platforms such as Facebook and Twitter should be passive and should not be removing any content. Their purpose is supposed to be limited to processing, storing, and transmitting of data and “does not include intervention on the content of users”, Surya said.  “An intermediary receives protection that a regular publisher does not receive,” he added. 

The Indian government is yet to finalise proposals to amend intermediary liability protections granted under the IT Act, 2000. In December 2018, nearly two years ago, the government had first proposed amendments reducing protections, and making internet intermediaries more liable for what users do on their platforms. It’s important to remember that any change or repeal of such protections do not simply impact social media companies, but all internet intermediaries, including ISPs, a blog, a cloud service provider, browsers, and even services such as GitHub and Wikipedia. 

MediaNama’s take: When the government proposed diluting safe harbour protections in 2018, it was feared that they would lead to censorship and a prior restraint regime, where internet intermediaries over-censor and remove content that may not be violative, simply to ensure compliance with laws. 

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

Surya’s declaration that the safe harbour is unconstitutional and should be repealed to protect free speech does not have any factual basis. Safe harbour protections, including under Intermediary Guidelines Rules, protect free speech. Requiring actual knowledge, such as by means of a court order or through internal flagging mechanisms, ensures that content removal follows due process and is not arbitrarily removed. While it is debatable whether social media platforms are truly passive and neutral intermediaries, whether removing safe harbour protections will harm free speech is not up for debate. It inevitably will. 

Written By

I cover health, policy issues such as intermediary liability, data governance, internet shutdowns, and more. Hit me up for tips.

MediaNama’s mission is to help build a digital ecosystem which is open, fair, global and competitive.



Looking at the definition of health data, it is difficult to verify whether health IDs are covered by the Bill.


The accession to the Convention brings many advantages, but it could complicate the Brazilian stance at the BRICS and UN levels.


In light of the state's emerging digital healthcare apparatus, how does Clause 12 alter the consent and purpose limitation model?


The collective implication of leaving out ‘proportionality’ from Clause 12 is to provide very wide discretionary powers to the state.


The latest draft is also problematic for companies or service providers that have nothing to with children's data.

You May Also Like


Google has released a Google Travel Trends Report which states that branded budget hotel search queries grew 179% year over year (YOY) in India, in...


135 job openings in over 60 companies are listed at our free Digital and Mobile Job Board: If you’re looking for a job, or...


Rajesh Kumar* doesn’t have many enemies in life. But, Uber, for which he drives a cab everyday, is starting to look like one, he...


By Aroon Deep and Aditya Chunduru You’re reading it here first: Twitter has complied with government requests to censor 52 tweets that mostly criticised...

MediaNama is the premier source of information and analysis on Technology Policy in India. More about MediaNama, and contact information, here.

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ

Subscribe to our daily newsletter
Your email address:*
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ