‘Right to free speech must be given the widest width. But in the case of content on social media, prosecution is a post-occurrence proceeding. There should be preventive mechanisms to stop spreading misinformation and damage to society,’ the SC bench said
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Thursday told the information and broadcasting ministry to prepare a draft mechanism for screening of user-generated content (UGC) prior to its uploading on social media, realising its vast potential to cause social upheaval before being taken down.A bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said, “Right to freedom of speech is very important but a regulated right. It is not absolute as the First Amendment Rights in the US. Self-regulatory codes may not work in case of UGC. If anti-national content is uploaded on social media, by the time the govt notices it and orders its takedown, a day or two may pass, during which period it would go viral and cause damage to, or unrest in, society.”The bench said, “We will not approve of a mechanism that will gag expression of views or freedom of speech. We are on a reasonable preventive mechanism, not to throttle but sieve content on social media prior to uploading. AI provides enormous potential to curate content. Some content may be academic yet… scurrilous. Today there is a statutory vacuum in this regard which needs to be filled.”Advocate Prashant Bhushan protested use of the word “anti-national” and said it is subjectively and selectively defined by authorities. SC: Issue is social media content that goes viral before pull-downThe SC bench said, “Forget the definition of anti-national. If someone posts a video claiming parts of India with a neighbouring country, will it not be termed anti-national?”Bhushan differed. He asked, “If I question the accession of Sikkim to India, it is a mere viewpoint and cannot be termed anti-national. If I discuss China claiming parts of India’s territory, would it be anti-national?” Solicitor general Tushar Mehta protested loudly & said Bhushan should not instigate secession in a judicial proceeding related to curbing uploading of obscene, perverse & anti-national content on social media.CJI Kant said, “There was a case before us during Operation Sindoor. A person uploaded a video claiming he was with Pakistan and praised another country for helping Pakistan. When the matter came before the court, he simply said he had deleted the post within an hour of posting it. But in this age, the moment such content gets posted on social media, it immediately goes viral and there is no mechanism to prevent uploading of such content.”“Right to free speech must be given the widest width. But in the case of content on social media, prosecution is a post-occurrence proceeding. There should be preventive mechanisms to stop spreading misinformation and damage to society,” the bench said.When two associations of broadcasters, OTTs and digital channels said they have self-regulatory codes and that there is no need for pre-censorship of content, the bench asked, “If the self-regulatory code is working, why is such content getting posted on social media?”“A portal under self-regulation cannot decide whether content is damaging to society, obscene or outrageous. We can’t also give that regulatory power to the govt, but to an autonomous body. Speaking against the govt is not anti-national activity. That is a precious democratic right. But the problem is with certain content on social media which goes viral prior to these being taken down,” the bench said.The court asked the I&B ministry to frame guidelines in four weeks and then publicise them to seek suggestions and objections from the public. The bench said the court would examine the issue after the govt prepares the draft mechanism, after considering the suggestions and objections of experts and public, to scrutinise social media content prior to their uploading.Attorney general R Venkaratamani and Mehta told the court that the ministry would carry out the exercise and take public opinion on it within four weeks. The bench said that the govt should take help of domain experts, jurists and media personnel in drafting the proposed mechanism.
