Central Idea
- The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) has created powers to determine fake or false or misleading internet content about any business of the Central Government, which is inspired by George Orwell’s novel 1984 and its concept of Newspeak. While the government claims that these changes are for an Open, Safe & Trusted and Accountable Internet, this claim is questionable, and their impact on natural justice, transparency, and trust in government.
- Fake news refers to intentionally fabricated or misleading information presented as if it were real news. It can be spread through traditional media sources like newspapers or television, but it is more commonly associated with social media platforms and other online sources.
- Fake news can range from completely made-up stories to misleading headlines and selectively edited or out-of-context information designed to deceive readers.
- It is often used for political purposes, to manipulate public opinion or to spread misinformation about individuals, organizations or events.
What makes Government’s claim questionable?
1. No safeguards for natural justice
- Against the principle of natural justice: The IT Amendment Rules, 2023, contain powers that allow the government to act as a judge in its own case. This goes against the principles of natural justice, where a transparent process with a fair chance of hearing and a legal order is essential.
- Government censorship: The absence of such safeguards in the IT Rules could result in government censorship, where press releases and tweets by the government may rally citizens to its cause without providing legal reasoning or the remedy of a legal challenge.
2. Government censorship in the name of safety
- Swift take-down of the content: With the new powers, the determination of fake or false or misleading information by a fact-checking unit of the Central Government will result in a swift take-down of the content, making it inaccessible not only on social media but also on the news portal’s website.
- Prevents critical understanding: This will prevent readers from developing a critical understanding of facts, which is a natural outcome of a democratic system. Thus, the IT Rules undermine the administration of justice and assume that the executive alone knows what is best for the citizen.
3. Lack of details on fact-checking body composition
- Lack of details and autonomy of the fact checking body: For a trusted internet, the fact-checking body’s composition and design of regulatory institutions are important. When these bodies are not insulated or formed with financial and functional autonomy, they become subservient to government and political interests. This undermines the basis of trust in government built through scrutiny.
- Government the sole arbiter of truth: The present system makes the Union Government the sole arbiter of truth, leaving citizens with little choice but to trust the government.
The basis of accountability
- Accountability requires remedial actions that are neither an artificial measure of placation nor a disproportionate or aggressive penalty.
- The IT Rules target institutions that work towards accountability, making it difficult to achieve its purpose.
- The mission of journalists is to report facts and speak truth to power, and the slogan Open, Safe & Trusted and Accountable Internet means little in a Digital India, where Newspeak-like rules prevent the free exchange of information.
Conclusion
- IT Rules of 2023, inspired by Orwell’s Newspeak, could lead to government censorship, lack of natural justice, and trust in government. The government needs to provide transparency, impartiality, and accountability in the regulatory institutions’ design to build trust among citizens. Instead of relying on a fact-checking unit of the Central Government, it is essential to establish independent regulatory bodies with financial and functional autonomy to promote a truly open, safe, and trusted internet.
