Govt is not only taking over the role of a judiciary but is also interfering in the affairs of private companies: AIC on the proposed Grievance Appellate Committee
The AIC also called the clause mandating grievance officer to take action on certain complaints against a social media intermediary within 72 hours as infeasible
Earlier, several other bodies and individual legal experts also raised similar concerns around the draft amendment to the IT Rules, 2021
The Asia Internet Coalition (AIC) has opposed the Centre’s proposal to set up a Grievance Appellate Committee as part of its amendments to the IT Rules, 2021.
In its comments on the amendments submitted to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), the industry association said that the proposal to form the Grievance Appellate Committee is not only akin to the government taking over the role of judiciary but also interfering in the affairs of private companies
“…we believe that the prospective creation of multiple, national oversight bodies – each potentially interpreting common standards through local lenses – seems likely to fragment digital policymaking while creating compliance hurdles and barriers to entry for smaller companies,” the AIC said in its comments submitted in July.
The association counts the likes of Apple, Amazon, Google, LinkedIn among its members.
Earlier, several other bodies and legal experts raised similar concerns on the draft amendments to the IT Rules, 2021, published in June this year.
The formation of the Grievance Appellate Committee, the timeline for appealing to the committee, and the imposition of the state’s fundamental rights on the social media intermediaries are among the major concerns.
While the proposed Grievance Appellate Committee is expected to be the decision-maker for taking down content on social media platforms, the AIC noted that the draft rules provide no clarity on the ‘quorum’ or ‘composition’ of such an authority.
“The Grievance Appellate Committee cannot comprise of officers drawn solely from the executive and should necessarily comprise of officers drawn from the judiciary at least in the majority,” it said.
Besides, the amendments do not specify the manner in which the committee will operate, including whether intermediaries or the Grievance Officers appointed by the social media intermediaries will be given the opportunity to be heard, the association said.
The proposed amendments also do not contain adequate restrictions that can prevent the Committee from acting as a judicial or quasi-judicial body with wide-ranging authority.
Hence, the AIC urged MeitY to allow the industry to adopt a self-regulatory grievance redressal mechanism as an alternative to Grievance Appellate Committee.
Earlier, the Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) had also noted that the provision of forming such a committee was “concerning as this would make the Central Government (rather than an independent judicial or a regulatory body) the arbiter of permissible speech on the internet”.
Issues Beyond The Proposed Committee
Under rule 3(1)(a) and rule 3(1)(b) of the proposed amendments, the social media intermediaries have also been mandated to comply with the rules. The AIC called the rules “too ambiguous and potentially too onerous”, adding that they do not clearly define the scope of intermediaries’ obligation to ensure compliance.
“Practically, businesses cannot be expected to implement compliance where such scope remains vague,” it added.
Besides, the proposed amendments to the grievance redressal mechanism of intermediaries provide too short timelines, which might not be feasible, the AIC said.
As per the draft amendments, the grievance officer would have to take action on certain complaints against a social media intermediary within 72 hours, while the earlier time frame was of 15 days.
“We request MEITY to retain the pre-existing timeframe with respect to all grievances given the infeasibility of implementing the proposed amendment and the unintended but adverse impact it may have on users,” the AIC said.
On this issue, the IFF in its recommendation had noted that the obligation to address any user generated complaint within 72 hours is not only difficult to comply with but would inevitably lead to incorrect decision making, hence leading to “arbitrary censorship of speech”.
What Are The Others Saying?
Recently, two US lobby groups representing Facebook and Twitter also raised concerns around the formation of a Grievance Appellate Committee, Reuters reported last month.
“In the absence of industry and civil society representation, such GACs (Grievance Appellate Committees) may result in over regulation from the government,” the US-India Business Council (USIBC) reportedly told the IT Ministry in an internal letter.
On the other hand, the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum (USISPF) also raised questions as to how the independence of the committee will be ensured.
