ROLE OF GOVERNMENT AND THE JUDICIARY TO PREVENT

SOCIAL MEDIA VIOLATIONS IN INDIA

ABSTRACT

Online social media platforms set the agenda and structure for public and private communication in our
age. Their influence and power is beyond any traditional media empire. Their legal regulation is a pressing
challenge, but currently, they are mainly governed by economic pressures. There are now diverse legislative
attempts to regulate platforms in various parts of the world. This paper reviews the challenges faced by fake
news, free speech and disinformation disseminated through social media platforms in India, and the present
government policies for effective legislation and robust regulatory mechanism to deal with the said
challenges.

Keywords: Social media, Fake news, Free speech, Restrictions, Violations, Government regulations

I. INTRODUCTION
The ascent of social media, correspondence and the dispersal of data are going through revolutionary
change. Conventional media like print, radio, and TV are in a general sense modified by the "viral" nature of
virtual entertainment, which can possibly spread data dramatically through informal exchange and the
interlinking of different online entertainment stages, essentially decreasing how much control a substance
has over how rapidly something spreads. A worldview change from Web 1.0 advancements that took into
consideration straightforward data sharing and fundamental two-way exchanges to Web 2.0 - where without
question, everybody is/can be a client as well as a substance maker, as these characteristics demonstrate
When it comes to how we associate with each other, web-based entertainment is making a huge difference.
WhatsApp, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok are just a few of the many social media
platforms that people use to share information and voice their opinions. More than a million people in India
have access to the internet, and roughly 250 million of those are active social media users. 4 Social media
has turned into a deadly tool for spreading false information that undermines the country's security,
sovereignty, and social fabric (Jones, 2021).
In India, the issue of social media-fueled rumours is not new, but the obstacles brought by it are.
Disinformation, bigotry, and propaganda are being conveyed on social media platforms that were once
popular for distributing information and expertise (Shafi & Ravikumar, 2018).
There have been several occurrences in India in the previous decade when rumours circulated on social
media platforms hosted by intermediaries have sparked violence. Exodus of northeasterners from Bengaluru
to Guwahati after social media posts suggested violent assaults on them (2012), Muzaffarnagar riots (2013),
and Delhi riots (2020) enlighten our eyes to the reality of the bloodshed and mayhem produced by
misinformation circulated on social media in the ground (Gupta, 2021).
An effort to contain the problem was made by the government, which issued advisories to intermediaries,
blocked the internet (in Kashmir during the revocation of Article 370 and in Delhi during the Anti-CAA
protests) and encouraged Fact-check websites to inform people about how reliable information received via
social media was. As rumor-mongers frequently accuse fact-checkers of prejudice and internet blockades
harm India's worldwide image of its thriving democracy, the government's attempt to combat the fake news
threat is failing miserably. It has been impossible for the government or social media sites to put a stop to
the spread of false news on social media since there is no legal framework in place. It has been difficult to
come up with a solution to this serious problem since law enforcement agencies have not included the
capacity to track down the "true" identity of social media users and have restricted the use of end-to-end
encryption technology given by intermediaries (Yasmeen & Alastair, 2021).
Fake news has been around since the advent of the printing press, but the internet and social media have
given it a whole new meaning. A current global trend involves the sly manipulation of search engine and
social media algorithmic results in order to reach a wide audience and mislead news consumers. As a result
of the rise of the "troll farm," fake videos and news items with morphing media logos, bots, and paid
commenters have become prevalent. In order to curtail free expression, governments are using the fear of
false information spread through social media.
The Supreme Court's recent rulings and Parliament's recent debates show the immensity of the problem
caused by the proliferation of false news. The Supreme Court requested the government to consider a
petition for publicising the goals, objectives, and advantages of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in
order to combat the spread of false information on social media. Fake news during the COVID 19 epidemic
led to more deaths than the virus itself, according to the Supreme Court. To combat the transmission of false
information, the Supreme Court requested that the Central Government put up a site within 24 hours to
disseminate real-time information on the coronavirus epidemic (Yasmeen & Alastair, 2021).

II. GOVERNMENT NEW SOCIAL MEDIA REGULATIONS TO CURB ITS VIOLATION

"Violation of Social Media Platforms and Spreading of Fake News and Free Speech" was raised in the Rajya
Sabha's storm meeting in 2018. Serve for Electronics and I.T. while answering the previously mentioned
movement on 26th July 2018, demonstrated to the parliament, that the public authority has resolved to work
on the legitimate system by making the web-based entertainment stages capable under the law (Singh,
2019).
Draft Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2018 were put together by the Ministry for
Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) in light of the 'misuse of virtual entertainment stages and
spread of phony news' call for consideration movement. Draft Rules, 2018 falls under the class of designated
or subordinate regulation made under the empowering arrangements of Section 79 of the I.T Act, 2000 and
is currently being talked about stage subsequent to getting remarks and proposals from every one of the
partners (Al-Rawi, 2019).
According to Gupta (2021b), defying established legal precedent, the Draft Rule also infringes on basic
rights protected by the Constitution. Additional examples are provided by the Draft Rules, 2018 extending
and supporting arbitrary and unconstrained censorship by imposing limits on the basic rights of speech and
expression protected by the Constitution, which are further proven in the following ways:
1. 'Any government agencies', as defined in Rule 3(5), may compel the intermediaries to facilitate the tracing
out of the originator of anything uploaded on their platform, as long as they are lawfully authorised.
 Most intermediaries that provide encrypted services to their consumers will be forced to ban end-to-
end encryption in order to meet the obligations imposed by this legislation, putting the privacy of
their users at risk. Is there any doubt that this Rule violates the right to privacy established by our
Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. U.O.I as an essential fundamental right guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution? (privacy 9j)
 People use social media to share information and knowledge, express their opinions, expose
corruption and organise social or political movements. This is not an exaggeration. By authorising
the government to silence an individual on social media by executive action rather than through the
Constitution's Article 19(1), end-to-end encryption will give rise to an Orwellian state (a).
 A subsequent arrangement, Section 69 of the I.T. Act, 2000, as of now accommodates the capacity to
break encryption or look for the decoding of material from middle people. Segment 79 of the I.T.
Act, 2000, states that the extent of decoding can't be extended through subordinate regulation.
 The I.T. Act's Section 69B approves specialists to screen and gather traffic information or data
through any PC asset to upgrade Cyber Security, too. Any data that distinguishes or implies to
recognize any individual, PC framework or PC organization or spot to or from which the
correspondence is or might be conveyed as indicated in Section 69B (4) (ii) is viewed as traffic
information. As per Section 69B of the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguard) Rules,
2009, MeitY has the position to give a request for traffic information checking. It is recommended in
Rule 3(5) of the Draft Rules, 2018, that an equivalent arrangement in regards to 'defensive or
network protection and things associated with and related thereto', supersede and grow the extent of
Section 69B and its guidelines.
 By evolving "government organizations who are legally approved" to "any administration office,"
the proposed rules expect to widen the parent act's meaning of government authority.
2. "Middle people ought to keep data concerning unlawful exercises connected with Article 19(2) for
something like 180 days for insightful purposes or for such longer time as might be important by the court or
by government specialists who are legally approved," says Rule 3(8). To start, the Supreme Court controlled
in K.S. Puttaswamy that such an open-finished information maintenance condition was irrational and illegal
(Aadhar 5j) 10. Rule regardless, the Supreme Court's Shreya Singhal v. Association of India decision11
states that delegates just have genuine information on court requests or demands to erase data when they are
recounted them.
3. Recommendations under Rule 3(9) call for mediators to utilize innovation based mechanized apparatuses
or strategies, alongside proper controls, to identify and erase or hinder free to unlawful data or material
proactively. As indicated by the proposition, delegates would be given finished prudence over figuring out
what establishes unlawful material or content and what measures are required. The Constitution's crucial
privileges will be disregarded assuming middle people are provided the capacity to determine these issues.
Draft rules 3(2) (b), 3(8) and 3(9) don't determine the significance of the expression "unlawful" to recognize
acts or expressions, and it is utilized conflictingly all through the Rules, which might prompt a broadly
understood translation. An "unlawful direct" as characterized in Section 79(3)b of India's Information
Technology Act would need to consent to Article 19(2) prerequisites, as expressed by the Supreme Court in
Shreya Singhal v. Association of India (above). Notwithstanding, this limitation isn't reflected in the
proposed Rule 3(9), which urges Internet go-betweens to screen their foundation for illicit substance
effectively (Nazmi, 2019).
For the reasons stated above, the Draft Rules, 2018 violate both the right to privacy and the freedom of
expression by imposing arbitrary and indiscriminate censorship. All of the aforementioned limitations run
counter to the State's constitutional duty to its people. It is because of this lack of compliance with
subordinate legislation principles that Draft Rules, 2018, fails to instil trust in the government's actions.
Even if social media can be criticised for some of its problems, we must equally recognise its beneficial
benefits, such as providing a ubiquitous arena for the distribution of information and the expression of
political opinions. In accordance with Article 19 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right
to freedom of expression and expression must be protected (a). Nevertheless, as the Supreme Court stated in
the case of Shreya Singhal (above), "What may be unpleasant to one person may not be repugnant to
another." "What may annoy or discomfort one individual may not annoy or inconvenience another," says the
author (Gupta, 2021b).
There is a distinction between "free speech," which is protected by the First Amendment, and
"disinformation," which is governed by the laws of the land. It is possible to distinguish between "free
speech," "disinformation," and "propaganda," despite the fact that doing so may be difficult at times. Social
controls that distinguish between true information and false information are explicitly exempted from the
definition in Article 19 since they differentiate between factual information and false information. 2(a).
Among the social rules mentioned in Article 19(2) to 19(6) are those that allow the government to impose
"reasonable constraints" on the rights guaranteed by Article 19(1) (a) to (c) (g) (Gupta, 2021b).
Because of the present proliferation of fake news and disinformation spread on social media platforms
hosted by third-party intermediaries, all social control lines have been breached (Article 19). India's
sovereignty and integrity are under jeopardy as a result of fake news spreading throughout the country.

III. PROTECTION OF RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND EXPRESSION

Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian constitution ensures that all people have the right to freedom of expression
and expression of thought. The Constitution prohibits the suppression of free expression under the pretence
of an Anti-Fake News Bill, and any effort to do so would be a violation of the Constitution. It is vital to have
a deeper understanding of the government's role in preventing the spread of misleading information in order
to guarantee that even the tiniest voices are heard. Ineffectively executed laws result in duplication of
regulations that are already in existence, according to the World Bank. A provision in India's constitution,
Article 19(2), already provides that no law — existing or future — would be affected or prohibited from
being enacted if it places reasonable restrictions on the enjoyment of Article 19's rights (1). Such limits will
be imposed in order to defend India's sovereignty and integrity, its security, cordial relations with other
nations, public order, decency, or morality, as well as to prevent contempt of court, defamation, or
incitement to a crime from occurring or being encouraged (Tiwari & Ghosh, 2018).
Despite the condemnation of Human Rights Watch Germany, the country's new law has received
widespread appreciation from the international community as a whole. In the opinion of Human Rights
Watch, assessing which content on social media platforms is questionable has grown more difficult as a
result of the need for a more deep understanding of cultural context. Someone who believes his or her right
to free speech has been violated unjustly by one of these social media businesses will have no legal recourse
against that company (Graciyal & Viswam, 2018).
An additional tool in the battle against the spread of misleading information is the establishment of the
Digital News Publishers Association (DNPA), which will serve as a regulating body for the industry. The
DNPA was founded in response to the I&B Ministry's heightened demands for the growth of India's digital
arena, which prompted ten of the country's largest media businesses to join forces. In addition to self-
regulation methods, it accepted the notion of cooperating with the government and other such organisations.
A clean digital information network, according to the PCI and the NBA, is what this digital media regulatory
organisation was created to achieve. It was founded to follow in the footsteps of its equivalent predecessors
in print media and television news, respectively (Yasmeen & Alastair, 2021).

IV. CONCLUSION
When social media is used in a non-discriminatory manner, it allows people from all walks of life to
exchange knowledge and expertise; express their opinions; expose corruption; and organise social and
political dialogues online. This is accomplished while maintaining user confidentiality. With technological
improvements, social media has emerged as a primary source for propagating incorrect information. The
mainstream media (print, television, and radio), which serves as the fourth pillar of democracy in an age of
fake news and disinformation, is in grave danger of becoming obsolete. Perhaps the next aim will be India's
territorial integrity and independence. It is certain that comprehensive legislation to prevent the spread of
fake news is required now, more than ever, to protect the public interest. Because of the Draft Rules' effect
on intellectual society and stakeholders, there is a legitimate concern about the rise of an Orwellian
government in the world. It is now drafted in such a way that it gives the state the option to silence free-
thinkers on social media with an executive order. While restricting these rights, basic rules must be
observed. Any law dealing with fake news should only be approved through Parliamentary procedures and
debate on the floor of the House in order to avoid infringing constitutional protections against such
information. Similarly, in order to prevent the undermining of India's democratic ideals, the government
should be mindful of imposing restrictions on the fundamental rights of Indian citizens by executive action.
Platforms such as Facebook and Twitter are welcome to operate in India, but only provided they conform to
the country's Constitution and laws, which they have accomplished by establishing these restrictions. Even
though these technologies have unquestionably given the typical user more power, those who misuse or
abuse them must be held accountable. Social media users will have greater authority and control over their
online experience as a result of the new Rules, which include a structure for grievance redress and rapid
resolution. As a result of the new restrictions on digital media and over-the-top (OTT), a thorough grievance
resolution mechanism has been established, while still maintaining journalistic and creative freedoms. The
basis for the proposal is progressive, liberal, and current. It tries to address a wide variety of problems that
citizens are concerned about in order to assuage concerns that free speech and expression would be
hampered.

REFERENCES
1. Al-Rawi, A. (2019). Viral News on Social Media. Digital Journalism, 63-79.
2. Graciyal, G. & Viswam, D. (2018). Freedom of Expression in Social Media: A Political Perspective.
International Journal of Multidisciplinary, 3(1), 110-113.
3. Gupta, A. (2021). Curbing misuse of social media – understanding the new rules under the
information technology act, 2000. Retrieved from
https://www.icsi.edu/media/webmodules/2_CURBING_MISUSE_OF_SOCIAL_MEDIA_UNDERS
TANDING_THE_NEW_RULES_UNDER_THE_INFORMATION_TECHNOLOGY_ACT_2000.p
df
4. Gupta, M. (2021b). A Review on IT Rules 2021: A positive or a negative restriction on digital media
and OTT platforms? retrieved from https://taxguru.in/corporate-law/review-rules-2021-positive-
negative-restriction-digital-media-ott-platforms.html
5. Jones, K. (2021). India’s Misguided War on Social Media. Retrieved from
https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/29695/for-freedom-of-speech-india-s-social-media-
regulations-raise-concerns
6. Nazmi, S. (2019). Why India shuts down the internet more than any other democracy. Retrieved
from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-50819905
7. Shafi, S., & Ravikumar, M. (2018). Dynamics of Fake News Dissemination: A Case Study in the
Indian context. Media Watch, 131-140.
8. Singh, R. (2019). The scope of free speech of social media. Retrieved from
http://lexhindustan.com/the-scope-of-free-speech-of-social-media/
9. Tiwari, S. & Ghosh, G. (2018). Social Media and Freedom of Speech and Expression: Challenges
before the Indian law. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328476554
10. Yasmeen, A. & Alastair, S. (2021). Restrictions on internet free speech are getting tighter all over the
world. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/r-proposals-to-curb-online-speech-viewed-
as-threat-to-open-internet-2016-6?IR=T