Call Us Now

+91 9606900005 / 04

For Enquiry

legacyiasacademy@gmail.com

Current Affairs for UPSC IAS Exam – 26 May 2021

Contents

  1. India’s new IT rules of intermediaries
  2. One Stop Centres (OSCs) across 10 missions for women
  3. Panel to define offences of speech, expression

India’s new IT rules of intermediaries

Context:

Social media giant Facebook said it aimed to comply with the provisions of India’s new IT rules of intermediaries, which come into effect on 26th May 2021.

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has notified Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 in February 2021.

Relevance:

GS-II: Polity and Governance (Government Policies & Interventions, Issues arising out of the design and implementation of such policies)

Dimensions of the Article:

  1. Salient Features of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021
  2. Digital Media Ethics Code Relating to Digital Media and OTT Platforms to be Administered by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting:
  3. Background to the Genesis of these new rules
  4. Rationale and Justification for New Guidelines
  5. Issues with the New Rules

Salient Features of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021

  1. Due Diligence to Be Followed by Intermediaries: The Rules prescribe due diligence that must be followed by intermediaries, including social media intermediaries. In case, due diligence is not followed by the intermediary, safe harbour provisions will not apply to them.
  2. Grievance Redressal Mechanism: The Rules seek to empower the users by mandating the intermediaries, including social media intermediaries, to establish a grievance redressal mechanism for receiving resolving complaints from the users or victims. Intermediaries shall appoint a Grievance Officer to deal with such complaints and share the name and contact details of such officer. Grievance Officer shall acknowledge the complaint within 24 hours and resolve it within fifteen days from its receipt.
  3. Ensuring Online Safety and Dignity of Users, Especially Women Users: Intermediaries shall remove or disable access withing 24 hours of receipt of complaints of contents that exposes the private areas of individuals, show such individuals in full or partial nudity or in sexual act or is in the nature of impersonation including morphed images etc. Such a complaint can be filed either by the individual or by any other person on his/her behalf.
  4. Two Categories of Social Media Intermediaries: To encourage innovations and enable growth of new social media intermediaries without subjecting smaller platforms to significant compliance requirement, the Rules make a distinction between 1: Social Media Intermediaries and 2: Significant Social Media Intermediaries. This distinction is based on the number of users on the social media platform. Government is empowered to notify the threshold of user base that will distinguish between social media intermediaries and significant social media intermediaries. The Rules require the
  5. Significant Social Media Intermediaries To follow certain additional due diligence. This Additional Due Diligence to be Followed by Significant Social Media Intermediary are to:
    1. Appoint a Chief Compliance Officer who shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with the Act and Rules,
    2. Appoint a Nodal Contact Person for 24×7 coordination with law enforcement agencies,
    3. Appoint a Resident Grievance Officer who shall perform the functions mentioned under Grievance Redressal Mechanism.
    4. Publish a monthly compliance report mentioning the details of complaints received and action taken on the complaints as well as details of contents removed proactively by the significant social media intermediary.
    5. Significant social media intermediaries providing services primarily in the nature of messaging shall enable identification of the first originator of the information that is required only for the purposes of prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution or punishment of an offence related to sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order or of incitement to an offence relating to the above or in relation with rape, sexually explicit material or child sexual abuse material punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than five years.
    6. Significant social media intermediary shall have a physical contact address in India published on its website or mobile app or both.
  6. Voluntary User Verification Mechanism: Users who wish to verify their accounts voluntarily shall be provided an appropriate mechanism to verify their accounts and provided with demonstrable and visible mark of verification.
  7. Giving Users an Opportunity to be Heard: In cases where the significant social media intermediaries removes or disables access to any information on their own accord, then a prior intimation for the same shall be communicated to the user who has shared that information with a notice explaining the grounds and reasons for such action. Users must be provided an adequate and reasonable opportunity to dispute the action taken by the intermediary.
  8. Removal of Unlawful Information: An intermediary upon receiving actual knowledge in the form of an order by a court or being notified by the Appropriate Govt. or its agencies through authorized officer should not host or publish any information which is prohibited under any law in relation to the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, friendly relations with foreign countries etc.

Digital Media Ethics Code Relating to Digital Media and OTT Platforms to be Administered by Ministry of Information and Broadcasting:

  • There have been widespread concerns about issues relating to digital contents both on digital media and OTT platforms. Civil Society, film makers, political leaders including Chief Minister, trade organizations and associations have all voiced their concerns and highlighted the imperative need for an appropriate institutional mechanism.
  • The Government also received many complaints from civil society and parents requesting interventions. There were many court proceedings in the Supreme Court and High Courts, where courts also urged the Government to take suitable measures.
  • Since the matter relates to digital platforms, therefore, a conscious decision was taken that issues relating to digital media and OTT and other creative programmes on Internet shall be administered by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting but the overall architecture shall be under the Information Technology Act, which governs digital platforms.
  • The Rules establish a soft-touch self-regulatory architecture and a Code of Ethics and three tier grievance redressal mechanism for news publishers and OTT Platforms and digital media.

Notified the Information Technology Act, these Rules empower the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to implement the following:

  1. Code of Ethics for online news, OTT platforms and digital media: This Code of Ethics prescribe the guidelines to be followed by OTT platforms and online news and digital media entities.
  2. Self-Classification of Content: The OTT platforms, called as the publishers of online curated content in the rules, would self-classify the content into five age-based categories- U (Universal), U/A 7+, U/A 13+, U/A 16+, and A (Adult). Platforms would be required to implement parental locks for content classified as U/A 13+ or higher, and reliable age verification mechanisms for content classified as “A”.
  3. Publishers of news on digital media would be required to observe Norms of Journalistic Conduct of the Press Council of India and the Programme Code under the Cable Television Networks Regulation Act thereby providing a level playing field between the offline (Print, TV) and digital media.
  4. A three-level grievance redressal mechanism has been established under the rules with different levels of self-regulation.
    1. Level-I: Self-regulation by the publishers;
    2. Level-II: Self-regulation by the self-regulating bodies of the publishers;
    3. Level-III: Oversight mechanism.
  5. Self-regulation by the Publisher: Publisher shall appoint a Grievance Redressal Officer based in India who shall be responsible for the redressal of grievances received by it. The officer shall take decision on every grievance received by it within 15 days.
  6. Self-Regulatory Body: There may be one or more self-regulatory bodies of publishers. Such a body shall be headed by a retired judge of the Supreme Court, a High Court or independent eminent person and have not more than six members. Such a body will have to register with the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. This body will oversee the adherence by the publisher to the Code of Ethics and address grievances that have not be been resolved by the publisher within 15 days.
  7. Oversight Mechanism: Ministry of Information and Broadcasting shall formulate an oversight mechanism. It shall publish a charter for self-regulating bodies, including Codes of Practices. It shall establish an Inter-Departmental Committee for hearing grievances.

Background to the Genesis of these new rules

  • Amidst growing concerns around lack of transparency, accountability and rights of users related to digital media and after elaborate consultation with the public and stakeholders, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 has been framed in exercise of powers under section 87 (2) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and in supersession of the earlier Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules 2011.
  • While finalizing these Rules, both the Ministries of Electronics and Information Technology and Ministry of Information and Broadcasting undertook elaborate consultations among themselves in order to have a harmonious, soft-touch oversight mechanism in relation to social media platform as well as digital media and OTT platforms etc.

The need for these new rules

  • The Digital India programme has now become a movement which is empowering common Indians with the power of technology. The extensive spread of mobile phones, Internet etc. has also enabled many social media platforms to expand their footprints in India. Common people are also using these platforms in a very significant way.
  • Social media intermediaries are no longer limited to playing the role of pure intermediary and often they become publishers.
  • Some portals, which publish analysis about social media platforms and which have not been disputed, have reported the following numbers as user base of major social media platforms in India:
    • WhatsApp users: more than 50 Crore
    • YouTube users: almost 45 Crore
    • Facebook users: more than 40 Crore
    • Instagram users: more than 20 Crore
    • Twitter users: 1.75 Crore
  • These social platforms have enabled common Indians to show their creativity, ask questions, be informed and freely share their views, including criticism of the Government and its functionaries.
  • Proliferation of social media,on one hand empowers the citizens then on the other hand gives rise to some serious concerns and consequences which have grown manifold in recent years.
  • These concerns have been raised from time to time in various forums including in the Parliament and its committees, judicial orders and in civil society deliberations in different parts of country. Such concerns are also raised all over the world and it is becoming an international issue.
  • Persistent spread of fake news has compelled many media platforms to create fact-check mechanisms. Rampant abuse of social media to share morphed images of women and contents related to revenge porn have often threatened the dignity of women.
  • Lack of transparency and absence of robust grievance redressal mechanism highlights the need for the new rules.

Rationale and Justification for New Guidelines

  • The following developments are noteworthy in justifying the new rules:
  • The Supreme Court in the Prajjawala case, 2018, had observed that the Government of India may frame necessary guidelines to eliminate child pornography, rape and gangrape imageries, videos and sites in content hosting platforms and other applications.
  • The Supreme Court had passed an order in 2019, directing the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to apprise the timeline in respect of completing the process of notifying the new rules.
  • There was a Calling Attention Motion on the misuse of social media and spread of fake news in the Rajya Sabha in 2018.
  • The Ad-hoc committee of the Rajya Sabha laid its report in 2020 after studying the alarming issue of pornography on social media and its effect on children and society as a whole and recommended for enabling identification of the first originator of such contents.

Issues with the New Rules

  1. Distortion of the Idea of Self-regulation: For digital publishers of news and current affairs as well as video streaming services, a three-tier structure for grievance redressal has been mandated. With an inter-ministerial committee of government officials in effect becoming an appellate authority over the self-regulatory exercise. This would be self-regulation by the media organization and the industry at the government’s pleasure.
  2. Compliance Burden: The sheer process of such grievance handling can impede the operations of a relatively smaller digital venture in the news and current affairs space. A measure like this, moreover, jeopardizes the very sustenance of the already financially straitened and functionally beleaguered digital news media.
  3. Potential Misuse: Apart from imposing a compliance burden on digital publishers, this also opens the floodgates for all kinds of interventions. Any criticism of the ruling party or government could trigger an orchestrated avalanche of grievances. This is more worrisome in the already vitiated climate of political and religious majoritarianism.
  4. Arbitrary Powers: The notification gives the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, ad hoc emergency powers to block any content the government considers problematic even without such token procedure. Also, a negative list of content that shall not be published would be encountered under law as reasonable restrictions to free speech.
  5. Problems in Tracking the First Originator: The rules require messaging apps such as WhatsApp and Signal to trace problematic messages to the originator. However, it raises uneasy questions about how such apps will be able to adhere to such orders, as their messages are encrypted end-to-end.

-Source: The Hindu


One Stop Centres (OSCs) across 10 missions for women

Context:

The Central government will set up One Stop Centres (OSCs) across 10 missions (Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, UAE, Jeddah and Riyadh in Saudi Arabia, Australia, Canada and Singapore) to provide assistance to Indian women who are survivors of gender-based violence.

Relevance:

GS-II: Social Justice (Issues related to women, Welfare Schemes)

Dimensions of the Article:

  1. About the One Stop Centers (OSC)
  2. Nirbhaya fund

About the One Stop Centers (OSC)

  • The Ministry of Women and Child Development will set up One Stop Centres (OSCs) across Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, UAE, Jeddah and Riyadh in Saudi Arabia, Australia, Canada and Singapore.
  • The Ministry of Women and Child Development will also set up 300 OSCs in the country in addition to the nearly 700 existing ones across all districts.
  • The scheme of setting up OSCs was launched in 2015 and it is a Centrally Sponsored Scheme for addressing the problem of violence against women.
  • It is a sub-scheme of the umbrella scheme for National Mission for Empowerment of Women including Indira Gandhi Mattritav Sahyaog Yojana.
  • The main objective of the scheme is to support women affected by the violence that they may face within the family or at the workplace or within the community, in private or public places.
  • Special focus of the scheme will be for women who face sexual, physical, psychological, emotional and economic abuse, irrespective of their caste, creed, race, class, education status, age, culture, or marital status.
  • OSCs are funded through Nirbhaya Fund and the central government provides 100% financial assistance to the state governments/Union Territories administrations.
  • The following services will be provided by the OSCs:
    • Emergency response and rescue services.
    • Medical assistance.
    • Assistance to women in lodging the FIR.
    • Psycho-social support and counselling.
    • Legal aid and counselling.
    • Shelter.
    • Video conferencing facility.

Nirbhaya fund

  • Nirbhaya fund was created in 2013 in the aftermath of December 2012 Delhi gangrape and murder case.
  • Giving in to popular sentiments, the government announced a separate fund for meeting expenditures to ensure the safety of women.
  • The government proposed an allocation of Rs 10,000 crore under the Nirbhaya Fund to ensure the safety of women.
  • Under the Nirbhaya Fund, the Centre gives money to the states, which in turn spend it on programmes meant for ensuring women’s safety.
  • The Women and Child Development Ministry is the nodal agency for expenditure from the Nirbhaya Fund.
  • The ministry it examines the programmes submitted to it by the states under the Nirbhaya scheme, approves them and recommends to the Department of Economic affairs for allocating funds.
  • The Nirbhaya Fund Framework provides for a non-lapsable corpus fund for the safety and security of women to be administered by the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA) of the Ministry of Finance (MoF) of the Government of India.
  • Further, it provides for an Empowered Committee (EC) of officers chaired by the Secretary, Ministry of Women & Child Development (MWCD) to appraise and recommend proposals to be funded under this framework.
  • The below standard funding pattern will be followed:
    • 60:40 for all States normally
    • 90:10 for States with difficult terrains
    • 100% for UTs
    • Few initiatives are 100% funded

-Source: The Hindu


Panel to define offences of speech, expression

Context:

A panel constituted by the Union Home Ministry to suggest reforms to the British-era Indian Penal Code (IPC) is likely to propose a separate Section on “offences relating to speech and expression.”

Relevance:

GS-II: Polity and Governance (Freedom of Speech, Government Policies & Interventions, Issues arising out of the design and implementation of such policies)

Dimensions of the Article:

  1. What is “Hate Speech”?
  2. Events that lead to the Formation of the Committee
  3. Existing legislations to control freedom of speech
  4. Recommendations of T. K. Viswanathan committee

What is “Hate Speech”?

  • In general, “Hate Speech” refers to words whose intent is to create hatred towards a particular group, that group may be a community, religion or race.This speech may or may not have meaning, but is likely to result in violence.
  • BPRD Definition:
  • The Bureau of Police Research and Development recently published a manual for investigating agencies on cyber harassment cases that defined hate speech as a “language that denigrates, insults, threatens or targets an individual based on their identity and other traits (such as sexual orientation or disability or religion etc.).”
  • In one of the Law Commission of India’s reports – hate speech is stated as an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief and the like.

Events that lead to the Formation of the Committee

  • Earlier in 2018, the Home Ministry had written to the Law Commission to prepare a distinct law for online “hate speech” acting on a report by a committee headed by former Lok Sabha Secretary General who recommended stricter laws.
  • The committee was formed in the wake of Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, that provided punishment for sending offensive messages through communication services being scrapped by the Supreme Court in 2015.
  • In 2019, however, the Ministry decided to overhaul the IPC, framed in 1860 and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) after seeking suggestions from States, the Supreme Court, High Courts, the Bar Council of India, Bar Councils of States, universities and law institutes on comprehensive amendments to criminal laws.
  • As there is no clear definition of what constitutes a “hate speech” in the IPC, the Committee for Reforms in Criminal Laws is attempting for the first time to define such speech.

Existing legislations to control freedom of speech

Under the Constitution (Fundamental Rights)

Article 19 of the Constitution– Freedom of Speech and Expression is guaranteed to all the citizens of India. However, the right is subjected to reasonable restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

 

Under Indian Penal Code

  • Sections 153A and 153B of the IPC: Punishes acts that cause enmity and hatred between two groups.
  • Section 295A of the IPC: Deals with punishing acts which deliberately or with malicious intention outrage the religious feelings of a class of persons.
  • Sections 505(1) and 505(2): Make the publication and circulation of content which may cause ill-will or hatred between different groups an offence.

Under Representation of People’s Act

  • Section 8 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951 (RPA): Prevents a person convicted of the illegal use of the freedom of speech from contesting an election.
  • Sections 123(3A) and 125 of the RPA: Bars the promotion of animosity on the grounds of race, religion, community, caste, or language in reference to elections and include it under corrupt electoral practices.

Recommendations of T. K. Viswanathan committee

The T. K. Viswanathan committee, constituted by the Centre, has recommended introducing stringent provisions for hate speech:

  • It was of the opinion that it was more effective to insert the substantive provisions in the IPC instead of the IT Act, since the IT Act was primarily concerned with e-commerce regulation.
  • It has recommended amendments in CrPC to enable each state to have a State Cyber Crime Coordinator (Sec 25B) and a District Cyber Crime Cell (Sec 25C).
  • The offensive speech should be “highly disparaging, abusive or inflammatory against any person or group of persons”, and should be uttered with the intention to cause “fear of injury or alarm”.
  • The committee also expressed the desirability of having guidelines in place to prevent the abuse of provisions by investigation agencies and to safeguard innocent users of social media.
  • Insertion of Section 153C to prohibit incitement of hatred through online speech on grounds of religion, caste, community, gender, sexual orientation, tribe, language, place of birth etc.
  • Section 505A was proposed to be inserted by the Law Commission to prevent causing of alarm, fear, provocation of violence etc. on grounds of identity.
  • It was clarified that the need for intent has to be established.

-Source: The Hindu

Download PDF
November 2022
MTWTFSS
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930 
Categories