- November 16 is celebrated as National Press Day in India. At a conference organized by the Press Council of India, the Prime Ministers was quoted as favoring self regulation of the media as opposed to any form of state censorship. Speaking at the same meeting, Congress Member of Parliament Manish Tewari spoke about the delicate balance involved in maintaining the freedom of the press.
- As reported earlier the full report of the Group of Experts on Privacy is available here. Useful summaries of the report can be read here and here.
- The Google India Transparency Report has been published and is available here.
- Google India has apparently been fined by the Income Tax Department, for improper accounting standards resulting in reporting of deflated income.
- The constitutional validity of Section 66A of the Information Techonology Act, 2000 is being challenged before the Madras High Court as reported here and here.
- In a welcome move the Union Cabinet has rejected the proposed amendments to the Right to Information Act, 2005, which would have narrowed the scope of the act.
- An excellent interview of Justice Katju by Madhu Trehan about the ills of the Indian Media and the debated reform of the Press Council of India
- A respectable apology by the Readers Editor at The Hindu about certain mistakes in the reporting the recent incidents at NLSIU.
- Zee News and Naveen Jindal seem to be involved in a defamation war against each other, with claims being in excess of 200 Crores.
- Justice Cyriac Joseph has been appointed as the new chairman for the TDSAT, and will take charge from Justice Sinha as reported here and here.
- Competition Commission allows Kumar Mangalam Birla to acquire 27.5% stake in Living Media Ltd, which is the holding company for various media outlets including India Today.
- Last week I shared a link about a decision by a Tokyo Court, holding Google liable for privacy violations for its “Suggest” function. Google has lost a similar case in Australia, where a man had filed a defamation suit against Google for displaying his name against pictures of a crime.
- A suit had been revived in Texas, arguing a free speech right in a domain name. The claim was denied in the original suit, but it is currently being re-heard, and could lead to a ruling on whether such a right exists.
Few weeks ago media reports emerged that the union cabinet had approved amendments to the Indecent Representation of Women’s Act, 1986 (IRWA). The IRWA was enacted with a view to penalize indecent portrayal of women in the mass communication and accordingly prescribes penalties (in terms of fines and imprisonment) for derogatory and indecent representation of women.
The amendment seeks primarily to introduce three key changes: first, widen the scope of the act to cover electronic communication and/or publication. Second, to increase the penalties by increasing the fine to between Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 1,00,000 for first time offenders and Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 5,00,000 for repeat offender. Those found guilty under the IRWA could also face a maximum jail term of three years and jail terms for repeat offenders could range from two to seven years. Third, police officers above a certain grade would have the power to carry out search and seizure in relation to any offending material, in addition to the power of state/central government officers.
Although the text of the actual amendment is not publicly available, certain preliminary issues deserve to be highlighted. First, it is interesting to note that there seems to be a discrepancy between the recommendations of the National Commission of Women (NCW) and the final proposal. The NCW suggested a much lighter penalty both in terms of a fine and jail term, in comparison to the final proposal. For instance, the NCW suggested a fine of Rs. 10,000 (for first time offenders) and Rs. 50,000 – 5,00,000 (for repeat offenders). Notably, imprisonment is excluded from first time offenders and a jail term ranging between six months and five years is suggested for repeat offenders.
Second, many representatives from the advertising industry have been critical of the amendment, stating that it might lead to over-censorship, since the focus of the regulatory intervention is based on loosely defined concepts such as “indecent”. These criticisms have also drawn attention to the redundancy of the amendment, as the objectives sought to be achieved could have been addressed under the existing Information Technology Act, 2000.
Third, the official government press release reveals certain interesting motivations behind the amendment. It draws specific attention to the need for greater regulation over virtual communication, as existing laws fail to adequately address emerging challenges in online activity. I think this is a worrisome situation, as state officials seem to think that regulation of new communication can be achieved by merely amending old laws. Not only is this ineffective from a regulatory perspective, but also problematic as it may lead to stifling of legitimate speech.
Given the slow pace of our parliamentary process, I think that the proposed amendments are worth tracking, specifically paying attention to what the end product might be.