Supreme Court seeks new rules on user-generated content

THe sublime margaret court on th emphasised the demand for an “ effectual” mechanism to regulate user-generated content and a stronger, independent oversight body, directing the Centre to draft guidelines within four weeks after public consultations.The court said regulations are not meant to “throttle” anyone but to create a “sieve,” noting the legal gap that provides no accountability for content uploaded on online platforms.“This is something very strange that I create my own platform and channel but there is no accountability. There must be a sense of responsibility attached to such content,” said a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi.The suggestion reopens the fundamental tension in content moderation, with both tech companies and authorities being unable to adequately prevent abuse — especially on video sites such as YouTube and on podcasts, where the audio-visual format makes detection of unlawful or denigrating content more challenging.The case arose from podcaster Ranveer Gautam Allahbadia’s petition seeking protection from multiple cases over his vulgar remarks on India’s Got Latent, a show on YouTube. The court had in March asked the Centre to provide guidelines to regulate such obscene, undignified speech.In a related hearing, the court also proposed stronger age-verification mechanisms, including Aadhaar-based gating, before explicit or sensitive content becomes viewable on digital platforms, questioning the adequacy of current one-line disclaimers that viewers barely register before objectionable material starts playing.“A warning of one line and then the video starts — by the time a person understands the warning, it is already there,” CJI Kant said, adding: “Build a responsible society and most of the problems will be solved”.Attorney general R Venkataramani presented a ministry of information and broadcasting (MIB) note suggesting changes to the Code of Ethics under the Information Technology Rules, 2021, incorporating separate guidelines on obscenity, accessibility for online curated content, and AI and Deepfakes.Solicitor general Tushar Mehta said the government recognises the need to act on user-generated content. “Freedom of speech is a valuable right but it cannot lead to perversity and obscenity. Today young boys and girls have easy access to technology.”The court noted online platforms present their own challenge. “Difficulty we find is the timing. By the time the platform and takedown is ordered after 48 or 72 hours, it becomes viral. So how to plug that gap.”The bench said, “We must have a preventive mechanism to ensure there is no misinformation, loss of lives or property,” directing that any proposal be put in the public domain for consultation first.Senior advocate Amit Sibal, appearing for Indian Broadcast and Digital Foundation (comprising OTT platforms), raised concerns. “While seeking to regulate user-generated content, they propose guidelines on digital content.”He said the 2021 IT Rules on Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code is under challenge before the Delhi High Court, with two crucial provisions — Rule 9(1) (Adherence to Code of Ethics) and Rule 9(3) (Three Level Grievance Redressal Mechanism) — stayed by the Bombay High Court.The foundation has a self-regulatory body headed by former high court chief justice Gita Mittal. The News Broadcasters Association (NBA) said digital content related to news is handled by News Broadcasters and Digital Standards Authority, which handles complaints against offensive content.“Is there a single instance of any action taken. If the problem has been taken care of, then why are these incidents happening,” the bench observed, adding, “These self-styled bodies cannot be effective. There has to be an autonomous body which is free from influence of those who are part of this forum.”Sibal said the lacuna lies with content on YouTube and Facebook. The court responded, “The guidelines applicable for broadcasters are equally applicable to intermediaries.”The court questioned whether intermediaries would regulate content that is “per se anti-national” or disruptive of societal values. “If you don’t have an autonomous body and allow everything to be aired, do we expect innocent people who are victimised to go and file for damages. They do not have a platform or forum to raise their grievances.”Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for a disabled professor seeking to be made a party, said guidelines should not be overly broad as preventing such posts can damage the right to freedom of expression, pointing to social media accounts being blocked for genuine dissent against government actions and policies.The court said guidelines will be applied on a trial basis. If provisions are used to gag individuals, the court will withhold approval. “We may leave it to the government to frame the regulations but to have a preventive mechanism is not to throttle anyone but to have a sieve. Today, technology run with Artificial Intelligence has made users enormously powerful.”The court assured, “We will not put a seal of approval if we find these provisions are used to gag someone. But as you admit, there is a vacuum that needs to be effectively filled.”The Centre’s note proposes classifying online curated content under four heads — U rating for content suitable for all children, U/A rating for three categories (children below 7 years, children between 7-13 years, and children above 16 years), and A rating for strictly adult content.The court said videos with adult content should verify user age through Aadhaar or PAN card before opening, besides having a disclaimer.“Freedom of speech and expression has to be protected and respected but the society and innocent children also have a fundamental right of dignity. Their right needs to be protected.”Senior advocate Aparajita Singh, appearing for Cure SMA Foundation, said SMA (spinal muscular atrophy) patients were mocked in an online show by podcaster Samay Raina and others, affecting parents’ efforts to source crowd-funding as treatment costs are exorbitant.“The Centre’s approach is right. Nobody should be in a hurry,” the bench said, suggesting that once guidelines are on the website, a team of experts — preferably judges, lawyers, technocrats — may examine and suggest changes.