Synopsis: Concept of smart walls has been introduced in the US. India should also explore the possibilities of using smart walls to protect borders. 

Syllabus – GS- 3 – Internal Security – Border management

Introduction 

US president has stopped the construction of a “border wall” between the U.S. and Mexico. However, a new ‘smart’ wall will be placed on the borders, as an alternative. 

The concept of a smart wall is not new. It was proposed under Trump administration to complement the physical barriers on the border.  

What is a smart wall? 

A ‘smart’ wall would use advanced surveillance technology instead of the physical wall and armed patrols.  

It would make use of the following technologies to detect and stop border infiltration:  

• For surveillance on the border, it would use radar satellites, computer-equipped border-control vehicles, control sensors, and underground sensors.
• Thermal imaging would be added for detection.

This technology is so precise that it can distinguish between animals, humans, and vehicles. Then, it will send updates to the forces.  

Is this technology useful in India? 

1. India is sharing a border with a difficult neighborhood. It is facing challenges of terrorists and smugglers infiltrating into the country. But due to the rugged topography on the borders, erection of fences or any physical structures have not been successful.  
2. Smart walls can be useful as their systems can be easily used on rugged topographies. Moreover, these technologies are cost-effective, less harmful to the environment, and require a lesser amount of land.  
3. Even if it is not feasible to cover all our borders under this technology, it can strengthen over existing border security infrastructure.  

Thus, with the increasing tensions on the border of India, exploring such technologies would strengthen India’s security on borders.  

News: India and Australia recently decided to step up their cooperation in the area of counter-terrorism including countering radicalisation and violent extremism, combating the financing of terrorism, preventing exploitation of the internet for terrorism and violent extremism.

Radicalisation in India:

• Radicalisation: It is associated with the political interpretation of religion and the defence, by violent means, of a religious identity perceived to be under attack.
• Radicalisation of youth by ISIS: In early 2020 the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) published an India-centric propaganda material called Voice of Hind.
• Left-Wing Extremism (LWE): instances of Internet-facilitated indoctrination, active radicalisation in multiple states and Left-Wing Extremism (LWE) have grown despite the continued government intervention.
• Right-wing extremism: increased incidents of mob lynching, cow vigilantism and the string of assassinations of rationalists such as Narendra Dabholkar, Govind Pansare and Gauri Lankesh point towards rising extremism in the right-wing cadres.

Reasons for growing Radicalisation in society:

• Socio-Economic Factors: Socio-economic factors like poverty, social exclusion, marginalisation and discrimination, limited education and employment etc. is a cause of growing radicalisation. o The poor and illiterate provides a fertile ground for radical agencies for recruitment.
• Political Factors: Various political factors including weak and non-participatory political systems lacking good governance and regard for civil society are leading to people turning towards radicalisation. o Apathy of government, authoritarian tendencies lead to shattering of hopes and sense of anger against the government and established regime.
  • • For example, Naxalism was fuelled by the sense of apathy of local politicians against the local people.
• Social media: Social media provides virtual participation and a platform for like-minded extremist views, accelerating the process of radicalisation. o Internet is used by terrorists as an effective tool for radicalisation and terror financing.
  • • Terror groups use the internet to advocate the use of violence to further a religious, ideological or political cause.
    • For example, modus operandi of ISIS is spreading terror through local proxies and social media messaging.
• Displacement: Often development is accompanied by displacement. People are displaced due to land acquisition but often are not adequately compensated. o This led to the development of feelings of injustice and anger against the state, often leading to tilt towards radicalisation. for example, Naxalism.
• Religious intolerance: Rising religious intolerance, hate crimes, mob lynching are further leading to radicalisation. Feeling hatred and intolerance, against a section of people are turning them towards radicalisation.
• Illegal migration: Porous borders especially towards West Bengal and the North Eastern States have led to an influx of thousands of Bangladeshis migrants which has increased tensions among ethnic communities. e.g., Kokrajhar riots of Assam, Dimapur lynching of a rape accused.
• Feed on vulnerabilities: for example, the threat of radicalisation during peoples protest such as anti CAA, farmers protest.

Consequences of radicalisation:

• Economic costs: A sense of fear reduces economic investment and hinders economic progress of a country. Loss of trade and access to markets have a negative impact on people’s livelihoods. o E.g., youth in Kashmir being radicalised leading to the low economic development of the area.
• Social costs: Using resources for conflict-related purposes means that public expenditures on social services decrease. This impact spending on social causes like education, health etc.
• Impact on children: Children face particular vulnerabilities as a result of armed violence such as orphanhood, psychological damage. They also face a threat of recruitment as young soldiers.
  • • These factors often lead to a disruption to education, and thereby the reduction of a child’s capacity to recover from poverty.
• Impact on women: Women are affected in many ways in the event of violence. Sexual violence, recruitment as combatants and an expanded economic/household role, which is often transferred onto young girls. for example, Yazidi women suffered under ISIS.

Steps to tackle radicalisation:

• Strengthening Institutions: Educational and political institutions should be strengthened at ground level so that people of the state feel empowered.
  • • Also, intelligence agencies, law enforcement agencies and Judicial Courts need to act in unison on this matter.
    • A consistent counter radical strategy is required to tackle radicalism.
• Employment: Enough number of job opportunities should be provided to people to decrease their chances of joining any radical organization.
• De-radicalisation: It is necessary to de-radicalise people. There is a need to ensure that people who have been de-radicalised feeling safe and secure in the country.
• Social development: The cornerstone for radicalisation is poverty, deprivation and isolation and standard education opportunities.
  • • These need to be addressed by the government and policies to be formulated for inclusive participation and facilitation of all means for their development.

• Regulation of internet: There is a need to draw guidelines to regulate the internet. o This must be done without damaging the privacy of an individual.
  • • An effort is needed to place an effective mechanism to trace the activity of radical groups.
• Regulation of social media: Social media to be regulated to draw a legalized guide lines to regulate without contradicting the privacy of an individual.
• Schemes: Initiatives like UDAAN and NAI MANZIL must be inclusive in nature and drag youth from all sections.
• Nehru Yuva Kendras to be given impetus in such areas to involve youth in all capacity, cultural and sports activities so there are less chances for them to get influenced from such ideological goals.
• Community model: The success of Kerala and Maharashtra programmes of deradicalization indicates how community-based programmes may work in vulnerable states.
  • • The disaffected youth with no real job prospects and limited futures are vulnerable.

Tackling Radicalisation requires policymakers and practitioners to appreciate the unique nature of radical ideologies, many of them seeking the wholesale destruction of civic order as opposed to its reform or even restructuring. The war on terror is to be countered more in the human mind and requires different skills and tactics. There are links between extremism, social exclusion and radicalisation. Sociological interventions to prevent or counter-extremist behaviours are needed.

Context: Recently, Pakistan’s Opposition MP, Sardar Ayaz Sadiq, alleged that the PTI government released the captured Indian fighter pilot, Abhinandan Varthaman due to fear of an imminent missile strike from India.

Background

• On 14 February 2019, the suicide car bomb blast in Pulwama led to the death of 40 Central Reserve Police Force personnel.
• Avenging this, the Indian Air Force (IAF) targeted a seminary at Balakot in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan what is known as Balakot strike.
• The Pakistan Air Force attempted its counter attack the next day morning in Jammu and Kashmir, and in the ensuing aerial combat, Wg. Cdr. Abhinandan was captured by the Pakistan military.
• Later, Wg. Cdr. Abhinandan was released by Pakistan as a peace gesture.

What are the lessons from Pulwama and Balakot?

Pulwama attack

• Even, after the National Investigation Agency filed a 13,800-page charge sheet in August certain Questions have not been answered satisfactorily.
• The responsibility for the intelligence failure, violation of standard operating procedures by security forces and the possible involvement of disgraced Jammu and Kashmir police officer, Davinder Singh, remain unexamined.

Balakot Strike:

• The performance of the IAF has been seen with scepticism in most western capitals. For example, the IAF claims to have shot down a Pakistan Air Force F-16 fighter jet was not accepted.
• There were many questions damaging the professional image of IAF such as whether IAF were able to strike the designated targets, asking for providing proof of the destruction caused by IAF etc.
• For, all the questions and scepticism raised, the IAF didn’t have a convincing answer.
• Also, the fact remains that the IAF has lost a fighter aircraft and the pilot ended in Pakistani custody. That day, the IAF also shot down its own helicopter in friendly fire, close to Srinagar.
• The IAF has behaved in a partisan manner by preventing any media reportage of the incident before the Lok Sabha elections were over.
• In a healthy democracy, apolitical armed forces are supposed to follow the elected government’s lawful orders but do not work to further the partisan aims of the ruling party.
• This would set a wrong precedent for the armed forces and its senior leadership unless corrected.
• Also, neither the surgical strike of 2016 nor the Balakot air strike have infused deterrence in the Kashmiri hinterland or on the LoC, as evident from the senior Indian Army officers regularly claiming that Pakistan has hundreds of militants ready to be pushed across the Line of Control (LoC) at launchpads.
• In recent years, the institutions like Parliament, the judiciary and the media has earned a lot of attention, while the scholars have been shy of making enquiries about the conduct of the armed forces, an institution even more critical to the health of Indian democracy.

News: India Customs intercepted an 18-tonne shipment of red sandalwood destined for the United Arab Emirates, during “Operation Thunder 2020”.

Facts:

• Operation Thunder: It is coordinated by the INTERPOL and the World Customs Organization(WCO) involving law enforcement agencies in 103 countries against environmental crime.

Additional Facts:

• World Customs Organization (WCO): It is an independent intergovernmental body established in 1952 to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of Customs administrations. Headquarters: Brussels, Belgium.
• International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL): It is an intergovernmental organization established in 1923 with the aim to facilitate worldwide police cooperation and crime control in around 194 countries.Headquarters: Lyon, France.

In News: Recently, Foreign Contribution Regulation (Amendment) Bill 2020 was introduced in the Lok Sabha. The Bill amends the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010.

What is FCRA?

• Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act: It is an act of Parliament enacted in 1976 and amended in 2010 to regulate foreign donations and to ensure that such contributions do not adversely affect internal security.
• Coverage: It is applicable to all associations, groups and NGOs which intend to receive foreign donations.
• Who cannot receive foreign donations?
  • Members of the legislature and political parties, government officials, judges and media persons are prohibited from receiving any foreign contribution.
  • However, in 2017 the FCRA was amended through the Finance Bill to allow political parties to receive funds from the Indian subsidiary of a foreign company or a foreign company in which an Indian holds 50% or more shares.
• Registration: It is mandatory for all such NGOs to register themselves under the FCRA. The registration is initially valid for five years and it can be renewed subsequently if they comply with all norms.
• Purpose of Foreign contribution: Registered associations can receive foreign contributions for social, educational, religious, economic and cultural purposes. Filing of annual returns on the lines of Income Tax is compulsory.
• Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) New Rules:
  • In 2015, the MHA notified new rules which required NGOs to give an undertaking that the acceptance of foreign funds is not likely to prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India or impact friendly relations with any foreign state and does not disrupt communal harmony.
  • It also said all such NGOs would have to operate accounts in either nationalised or private banks which have core banking facilities to allow security agencies access on a real time basis.

Key provisions of Foreign Contribution Regulation (Amendment) Bill 2020:

• Prohibition to accept foreign contribution:
  • Include certain public servants in the prohibited category for accepting foreign contribution: These include: election candidates, editor or publisher of a newspaper, judges, government servants, members of any legislature, and political parties.
  • The Bill adds public servants to this list. Public servant includes any person who is in service or pay of the government, or remunerated by the government for the performance of any public duty.
• Transfer of foreign contribution: Under the Act, foreign contribution cannot be transferred to any other person unless such person is also registered to accept foreign contribution.
• FCRA account: The Bill states that foreign contribution must be received only in an account designated by the bank as FCRA account in such branches of the State Bank of India, New Delhi. No funds other than the foreign contribution should be received or deposited in this account.
• Definition of persons: The FCRA 2010 allows transfer of foreign contributions to persons registered to accept foreign contributions. The term ‘person’ under the Bill includes an individual, an association, or a registered company.
• Regulation: The Act states that a person may accept foreign contribution if they have obtained a certificate of registration from central government or obtained prior permission from the government to accept foreign contribution. The bill makes Aadhaar mandatory for registration.
• Restriction in utilisation of foreign contribution: The Bill gives government powers to stop utilisation of foreign funds by an organisation through a “summary enquiry”.
• Reduction in use of foreign contribution for administrative purposes: The bill decreases administrative expenses through foreign funds by an organisation to 20% from 50% earlier.
• Surrender of certificate: The Bill allows the central government to permit a person to surrender their registration certificate.

Need for such amendments:

• To monitor Misuse of funds: In Parliament, the government alleged that foreign money was being used for religious conversions. For instance, in 2017, the government barred American Christian charity, Compassion International.
• To prevent loss to the GDP: An official report quantifying the GDP losses allegedly caused by environmental NGOs was prepared during NPA period, indicating a foreign conspiracy against India.
• To enhance transparency and accountability: The annual inflow of foreign contribution has almost doubled between the years 2010 and 2019, but many recipients of foreign contribution have not utilised the same for the purpose for which they were registered or granted prior permission under the said Act.
• To regulate NGO’s: Many persons were not adhering to statutory compliances such as submission of annual returns and maintenance of proper accounts.

Introduction

The Government of India has released the Information Technology (Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. It aims to regulate social media, digital news media, and Over-The-Top (OTT) content providers. The rules were jointly announced by the Minister for Information Technology and the Minister for Information and Broadcasting. Despite being praised by few experts as revolutionary, it also has certain challenges to be addressed. 

Need for the New IT Rules 2021:

India at present doesn’t have any specific rules to govern the digital news media and OTT platforms. At present these are governed under Section 79 of the IT Act. But it was not able to effectively control the misuse of data over social media and digital platforms. The reasons were,

1. Non-liability of Intermediary:
   • Section 69 of the IT Act gives power to the government to issue directions “to intercept, decrypt or monitor…any information generated, transmitted, received or stored” in any digital equipment.
   • The Intermediaries are required to preserve and retain specified information. Further, they have to obey the directions issued by the government from time to time.
   • By adhering to government rules, they will get protected from legal action for any user-generated content under Section 79. Section 79 states that an intermediary (Digital media and OTTs) shall not be liable for any third party information, data, or communication
2. Further, the user base of big companies has expanded rapidly. Currently there are over 53 crore WhatsApp users, over 44.8 Crore YouTube users and 41 Crore Facebook users. 
3. The government rejected the Self-regulatory toolkit submitted by 17 OTT Platforms. The government rejected them for reasons like lack of independent third-party monitoring, the tool-kit did not have a well-defined Code of Ethics, etc.

This induced the government to come up with new rules under the IT Act, 2000. The IT Rules 2011 got replaced with the new IT Rules 2021.

Salient provisions of IT Rules 2021

The new IT rules have been framed to address the Social Media, Digital Media and OTT platforms in a specific manner.

New IT Rules related to Social Media:

1. Social media companies are prohibited from hosting or publishing any unlawful information. These information are “in relation to the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, friendly relations with foreign countries, etc.
2. If such information is hosted or published the government can take down such information within 24 hours. The user will be given a notice before his/her content is taken down.
3. The government can direct messaging platforms to tie the identity of the user with the message transmitted by him/her for strengthening traceability.
4. The IT rules 2021 call for social media companies to publish a monthly compliance report.
5. Social media platforms are classified into two categories
   1. Social media intermediaries – Platforms that have a limited user base.
   2. Significant social media intermediaries – These are the platforms with a large user base.
6. The significant social media intermediaries have to follow few additional measures like:
   • These platforms should have a physical contact address in India. 
   • Appointing a Chief Compliance Officer, Nodal Contact Person, and a Resident Grievance Officer in India. All of them should be Indian Residents.
     • Nodal Contact Person will do 24×7 coordination with law enforcement agencies.
     • The Resident Grievance Officer must acknowledge the complaint within 24 hours, and resolve it within 15 days of receipt.

New IT Rules related to Digital media and OTT platforms:

• A Code of Ethics has been prescribed for OTT platforms and digital media entities.
• The streaming platforms (Like Netflix and Amazon Prime) will have to self-classify content on five age-based categories: U (universal), 7+, 13+, 16+, and A (adult).
• They need to have suitable parental locks for 13+ content and a robust age verification system for accessing adult content.
• Publishers of news on digital media will have to observe the norms of journalistic conduct of the Press Council of India and the Programme Code under the Cable Television Networks Regulation Act.
• A three-level grievance redressal mechanism has also been established:
  • Level-I: Self-regulation by the publishers
  • Level-II: Self-regulating body: This body shall be headed by a retired judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court or independent eminent person.
  • Level-III: Oversight mechanism: I&B Ministry will formulate an oversight mechanism and establish an inter-departmental committee for hearing grievances. This body will also have censorship and blocking powers.

Advantages of the new IT Rules 2021

1. It will ensure that social media platforms have to keep better checks and balances over their platforms. This will ensure the data is not shared unlawfully. This will ensure adherence to the rule of law.
2. The new IT rules enhance government regulation over social and digital media. This will enhance accountability and prevent arbitrary actions by digital platforms like the recent one by Twitter.
3. The new IT rules will lead to the empowerment of citizens. Since there is a mechanism for redressal and timely resolution of their grievances.
4. Disinformation (Fake and wrong information) of data can be controlled. Since there is proper regulatory mechanism, disinformation can be removed easily. This will reduce instances of fake news, violence, the spread of defamatory content and disruption of public order.
5. Giving due notice before removing content will prevent arbitrary removal of content. 
6. The imposition of print and electronic code of conduct on digital news media would ensure a level playing field for every media.
7. It will strengthen India’s position as a leader in digital policy and technological innovation. For example, China, with its larger digital population, has not been able to provide a fair and open local market for global companies in the digital space due to absence of proper IT Rules and Regulation.

Criticisms of the new IT Rules 2021

1. The New IT rules were not put for public consultation. Especially those related to regulations of online news portals and video streaming platforms. For example, IAMAI(Internet and Mobile Association of India) was not consulted on the proposed OTT guidelines.
2. The rules allow the government to enforce a traceability mechanism. This simply means a threat to the user’s privacy. It will hamper the end-to-end encryption of platforms like WhatsApp. 
3. As the new rules curtail free speech on digital platforms, there will be a sense of fear among the users.
4. The IT Act doesn’t cover content authors and creators like news media. But rules have included them.  This provides discretionary powers to the government. 
5. The proposed oversight mechanism doesn’t have any legislative backing which is generally given to other regulators. 
   • For example, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act provides powers to TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India). Under the rules, the regulation will be done by a body composed of bureaucrats who might perform discretionary censorship thereby enhancing political control.

Suggestions for smooth implementation of new IT rules

• The government should consult with appropriate stakeholders. This will improve the inclusivity and acceptability of the new IT rules.
• The focus should be on strengthening citizen’s rights by learning from successful global examples like OFCOM (OFCOM is a communication regulator in the UK).
• The government must have a mindset of flexibility and agility to support the rules adequately.
• OTT platforms while regulating the content have to strike a balance. Especially between the diverse Indian society and the beliefs of viewers in India.

The enactment of new IT rules 2021 is a watershed moment that will transform the digital information ecology in India. A fine balance between freedom of speech and the need to curb the misuse in digital platforms have to be maintained. Both the government and the digital platforms will have to work together and fulfill this responsibility. 

Synopsis: The new Social media code is much-needed to ensure the online platforms are subject to law of the land

Introduction:

Recently, the government introduced the Information Technology (Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The rules have the potential to transform the online media platforms to fit into the Indian ecosystem.

Few salient provisions in the New Social Media Code:

1. The OTT platforms together have to enact a code for self-regulation. Further, the OTT platforms also have to classify the content. Therefore, an underage minor not able to view the adult contents.
2.  The new social media code creates a three-tier grievance redressal mechanism.
   • First-tier: The publishers of social media have to appoint officers to redress their grievances. These officers have to ensure the time-bound disposal of grievances.
   • A self-regulating body headed by a retired judge will be at the Second-tier.
   • The central government oversight committee will be in the third tier.
3.  All the grievances have to be resolved within the framework of India’s laws. Recently, Twitter disobeyed government rules. After the implementation of New social media codes, social media have to obey the government directions.

What India need New Social Media Code?

1. The policy will create a level playing field in two important things.
   • Between the online news platforms and print media
   • Between the online news platforms and television news media.
2. The new social media rules will bring in the online news portals within the ambit of the code of ethics. It is a much-needed step considering the recklessness and irresponsibility shown by some of the digital media platforms.
3. Further, the new social media rules aim to achieve oversight responsibilities. Like the film certification agency for Cinema, the social media platforms have to ensure a content classification.
4. The new social media codes will ensure freedom of speech to the artists. This is achieved through self-regulation. Social media platforms can provide more freedom for artists to create content. Since they are the ones going to regulate it, they can classify the content of artist instead of banning them like other media (film, print etc).

What are the global lessons for digital media platforms in self-regulation?

1. Lessons from Australia: In Australia, Digital companies have drafted a code to deal with fake news and disinformation. This is called the Australian Code of Practice on Disinformation and Misinformation. The code has few important provisions including the removal of content and disabling the content from the digital platforms.
2. Lessons from the UK: The UK government is proposed an “Online Safety Bill”.  The Bill aims to deal heavily on digital platforms that promote violence, child abuse, terrorist material, cyber bullying, etc.

Conclusion:

The New social media code has the necessary provisions to ensure free speech.  At the same time, It will regulate social media companies from violating the law of the land.

Synopsis: The government announced The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The experts have welcomed the step but there are some cautious provisions in the new social media rules.

Background of the new social media rules:

• The rise of social media resulted in enormous controlling power in the hands of big technology companies. The government took this step to regulate the misuse of power by them.
• A core framework to determine intermediary liability was ensured by Section 79 of the Information Technology (IT) Act. This was supplemented by operational rules and SC’s judgment in the Shreya Singhal V. Union of India case.
• However, the intermediaries were kept immune for the content that is transmitted and stored by them. In return, they had to comply with a set of conditions that were set by the government. 
• It is this set of conditions that got translated into Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The rules were jointly announced by the Minister for Information Technology and the Minister for Information and Broadcasting.

About the new social media rules:

• They contain fresh obligations for social media companies and platforms.
• The user should be given a notice before its content is taken down. This improves the accountability of social media platforms.
• The government can direct messaging platforms to tie the identity of the user with the message transmitted by him/her for strengthening traceability.
• An oversight mechanism is being created for digital news media portals as well as for online video streaming platforms. It will perform a similar role like what the Ministry of Information and broadcasting does for T.V regulation.
• The body conducting oversight will also be empowered with censorship and blocking powers as per Rule 13(4).

Read more – Social Media and OTT rules

Criticisms of new social media rules:

• Various aspects of rules were not put for public consultation especially those related to regulations of online news portals and video streaming platforms.
• The rules allow the government to enforce a traceability mechanism. This simply means a threat to the user’s privacy.  It will hamper the end-to-end encryption of platforms like WhatsApp. 
• As the new rules curtail free speech on these platforms, there will be a sense of fear among the users
• The IT Act doesn’t cover content authors and creators like news media, but rules have included them. This provides discretionary powers to the government. 
• The proposed oversight mechanism doesn’t have any legislative backing which is generally given to other regulators. For example, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act provided powers to TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India). Under the rules, the regulation will be done by a body composed of bureaucrats. They might perform discretionary censorship.

Conclusion:

The proposed rules seem to enhance political control and enhance fear in the minds of users. They should have been formulated in a more deliberative way involving parliamentary processes. To protect citizen rights, India can frame a regulator like OFCOM in the UK. Anyway, the enactment of new social media rules is still a watershed moment that will transform the digital information ecology in India.

What is the news?

The Government of India has released the Information Technology (Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. It aims to regulate social media, digital news media and over-the-top (OTT) content providers.

Key Provisions of the Rules:

Social media companies and redressal: The government wants social media companies to have a mechanism to address complaints from users. It wants social media intermediaries to appoint the following officers:

1. Chief Compliance Officer, who shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with the Act and Rules.
2. Nodal Contact Person for 24×7 coordination with law enforcement agencies.
3. Resident Grievance Officer: He will receive and resolve complaints from users. The officer must acknowledge the complaint within 24 hours, and resolve it within 15 days of receipt.

All these officers have to be residents of India.

Categories of Content that should not be posted: The rules lay down categories of content that the social media platform should not host. It includes content that

• Threatens the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign states or public order
• Causes incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence or
• Prevents investigation of any offence or is insulting any foreign States
• Content is defamatory, obscene, pornographic, paedophilic, invasive of another’s privacy,
• Related to encouraging money laundering or gambling or is inconsistent with or contrary to the laws of India.

Removal of these contents: The rules stipulate that the platforms should remove the content within 36 hours. Duration will count from the receipt of information from a court or the appropriate government agency about the platform hosting prohibited content.

Monthly Compliance Report:

• The platforms will need to publish a monthly compliance report. It should have the details of complaints received and action taken on the complaints.

Track Originator of Message:

• The social media platforms need to disclose the first originator of the objectionable tweet or message if asked either by a court or a government authority.
• This will be required in matters related to the security and sovereignty of India, public order, or with regard to rape or any other sexually explicit material.

 Self-Classification of Content:

• The Over the Top(OTT) platforms would 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.  A reliable age verification mechanisms for content classified as “A” should be placed.

Publishing News on Digital Media:

• Publishers of news on digital media will 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.

Penalties for Non-Compliance of Rules:

• In case an intermediary fails to observe the rules, it will be liable for punishment under any law for the time being in force including the provisions of the IT Act and the Indian Penal Code.
• The penal provisions vary from imprisonment for three years to a maximum of seven years, with fines starting from Rs 2 lakh.

Source: Indian Express

New social media rules – an analysis

Synopsis – Delhi court grants bail to Disha Ravi in its ruling in the tool kit case. It termed evidence produced by Delhi police as inappropriate.

Introduction-

• Delhi Court granted bail to climate activist Disha Ravi, arrested in the Greta Thunberg ‘toolkit’ case.
• Delhi Police arrested her on charges of sedition and criminal conspiracy in the Greta toolkit case.

Key takeaways from Court’s ruling-

• The Delhi court dismissed the claims as Delhi police failed to show any evidence
• On criminal conspiracy, the Court noted that mere assumption is not sufficient. It should be backed by evidence.
  • The judge stated that only interaction with people of doubtful credentials is not an offence.
• On sedition, the court cited Kedar Nath case (1962) that actual violence or incitement to violence should be associated with words.
• Moreover, the Court negated the state’s “global conspiracy” claims and stated that the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression “includes the right to seek a global audience”. Also, “there are no geographical barriers on communication” as long as it’s “under the four corners of the law.”

What is the Toolkit case?

Toolkit- A document created to explain any issue which provides information on what one needs to do to address the issue.

• The toolkit includes information about petitions, details about protests, and mass movements.
• Also provide a roadmap of how to take forward the protest and what can be done, when and how.

Disha Ravi Toolkit case-

• Delhi police reported that Ravi was the editor of a Google doc (called a toolkit) related to farmer’s protest.
• Police alleged that she started a WhatsApp Group to make the Toolkit doc in collaboration with a pro-Khalistani organization to spread disaffection against the Indian state.
• She was charged with Section 120B [Criminal conspiracy], along with Sections 124A (sedition) and Section 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) of IPC.

Self-regulatory toolkit by OTTs for implementation of Self Regulation Codes, 2020

Synopsis: Recently, a clash erupted between the Australian government and Facebook. The big Techs in Australia are opposing the Fee to media companies for using their content.

Background

• Recently, the Australian government has proposed the ‘News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code Bill 2020’.
• The bill aims to make Google and Facebook pay to media companies for using their content.
• It also proposes for an arbiter to decide the payments. It is important because small publishers have no bargaining power against Big tech companies.
• Facebook has retaliated with a news blackout. It blocked all the news links on its platform. In this process, it also ended up blocking out emergency services such as weather forecast, rescue operation, news related to health, etc.
• In response to this bullying action by Facebook, Australia’s Prime Minister has sought global diplomatic support for forcing Internet giants to pay media companies.
• In this context, he also contacted Indian Prime minister Narendra Modi and Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to discuss the progress of media platform bill.
• The legislation sets a precedent in regulating social media across countries.

Why the government resorted to draft a bill for this purpose?

• In 2017, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) recommended a voluntary code for internet companies. It was to balance the negotiating power differential between major digital platforms and media businesses.
• However, the businesses were not able to reach an agreement voluntarily. This prompted the government to legislate a mandatory code.

Why internet companies are reluctant to accept this bill?

The basic argument of both companies is that,

• The media industry is already being benefitted from the traffic routed to them by the digital platforms.
• Also, they are of the opinion that the proposed rules would expose the Internet companies to unseen levels of financial and operational risk.

How it is regulated in other countries?

• Both the platforms Facebook and Google aim to formalize payment pacts with news companies in several other countries.
  • • For example, Facebook plans to launch its news tab feature in the US and in the UK, with likely tie-ups with The Guardian, The Economist, and The Independent.
    • Whereas Google has planned to roll out its news offering platform, Google News Showcase. It 450 publications on board in a dozen countries.
• Similarly, Google has accepted to pay news publications in France for using their content online.
• Even in Australia, Google has opted for a more conciliatory position by signing a deal with Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. Whereas, Facebook has resorted to retaliation. 

Why internet companies are having double standards with respect to different countries?

• Paying for a news feed is not an issue for the tech giants. They have already accepted to pay News publications in France.
• But the fight in Australia is over, how much control these companies would be able to retain on their pay-out process and on operational aspects. For example, the power to decide the payments for news feed sources, revealing changes in their algorithms, etc.,
• European laws have specifically linked payments to copyright, without any pressuring features into the agreements. Whereas Australia’s code is entirely focused on the bargaining power of news outlets and has some coercive features.

What is the status in India?

• According to a FICCI-EY report for 2020, there are 300 million users of online news sites, portals, and aggregators in the country. It comprises around 46% of Internet users and 77% of smartphone users in India at the end of 2019.
• Also, India is the second-largest online news consuming nation after China. This has increased the revenue for aggregators, news publishers through digital advertising.
• For example, according to EY estimates, digital advertising spends in 2019 grew 24% and is expected to grow to Rs 51,340 crore by 2022.
• Despite huge prospects, a substantial discussion on this issue is yet to begin in India.
• In India, Daily hunt and In Shorts are the other major news aggregators. They are yet to find a sustainable revenue model to make payments to publishers.

Regulating tech giants in India- Explained

Synopsis: The Indian government is planning to announce important regulations on big techs Internet-related technology companies. 

Introduction 

At present the world has two visions of the internet technology:

•  Libertarianism: Under this, liberal internet policies were followed by countries such as the USA. This model was successful in the past but now under pressure due to internal conflicts.
• Authoritarianism: Under this, Countries will enforce strict authoritative Internet policies. For example, China. This model is now getting strong support. 

Both of these creating a dilemma for other countries in regulating the big techs.

What is the need for regulating the big-techs?

There are several issues with internet platforms. These issues get intensified after big-techs starts creating and generating their own contents. The issues are 

1. Big tech companies acquire monopoly power in their operations. This leaves no scope for free and fair competition. 
2. The algorithms used by the big-techs were opaque and not subject to accountability.
3. These big tech companies became the symbol of inequality. They acquired more economic and political power.
4. These companies viewed themselves as a sovereign power and regulated speech on their own. For example, a private CEO banning the elected president trump from social media. 
5. There might be a harmful impact of big tech on democracy and democratisation. Democracies became more polarised and free speech abuses increased. 

What does India intend to achieve by regulating the big-techs?

The regulations against big tech are an attempt to curb the unfair advantages of big techs use to exploit the Indian market. India can create competition and be more self-reliant in the internet space.

1. Ideological push to Atmanirbhar Bharat: China kept out big tech companies from exploiting their market. At the same time, China did not face any difference in financial flows or investment in other areas. This is because China developed more indigenous technology. India can also create Atmanirbhar Bharat by regulating.
2. Many critics have urged the government to potentially control the information as much as possible. By regulating Big techs India can control the data generated by Indians more easily. 

Suggestions:

• The government should show a moral commitment and invest in science and technology. 
• India can address complicated issues by following these steps.  
  • Enhancing India’s technological capabilities. 
  • Creating an institutional structure to prevent big techs from diminishing democracy and freedom of speech.

Synopsis: Twitter has acted with reason after defying the Indian government’s legal orders. It didn’t implement the order fully and this action is desirable despite the criticism.

Introduction 

Twitter did not act in accordance with the Indian government’s orders under Section 69A of the IT Act. It was required to block hundreds of accounts under the order. 

However, Twitter has said that the list had accounts of journalists, activists, and politicians. Twitter believes that blocking these accounts would not be fair to Indian law and the platform’s contract objectives.

• This defiance has not gone down well with the government. Independent verifications revealed that many accounts did not post messages suggesting a genocide plan but supported farmers’ protest. 

What were the criticisms against Twitter?

Twitter witnessed criticism on multiple grounds such as: 

1. Firstly, Twitter’s refusal shows a lack of respect for Indian law because it is bound by legal orders of the government under the Act.
2. Secondly, Twitter is a private company, and it cannot decide what is proportionate or lawful. Twitter can challenge the order in a court, but cannot choose to comply partially.
3. Thirdly, Twitter’s decision indicates that it is denying parity to India with the U.S. The platform blocked Donald Trump’s account but refusing to block users in India.
4. Fourthly, its defiance indicates the increasing power and liberty of Big Tech. It requires a clear and plain zero-tolerance response.

Why Twitter’s actions are justified?

1. The tension between government and social media platforms is healthy and constructive. It keeps a balance, which was not possible if both were on the same side.
2. Following government orders blindly will seriously impact twitter’s audience’s fundamental rights. Twitter has also a responsibility to ensure people’s right to free and informed speech.
3. Big Techs has often sided with the government hurting its users’ rights. For instance, The Wall Street Journal reported that Facebook India failed to act on provocative posts of a member of the ruling party. It is good that Big techs are thinking about users. 
4. Twitter didn’t ban Trump’s account all of a sudden despite the repeated promotion of lies. His account was spreading misinformation during the Capitol Hill riot.  Before suspending his account, Twitter tried to flag his content and limit its reach. A permanent ban was the last step. Demanding a direct ban is against this process of twitter. 
5. The current incident is among the rare instances that Twitter has given equivalence to its Indian audience with that of its U.S.’s. Twitter chose to take an independent view of the matter and not blindly complied with the wishes of the government.

Way forward

• The attempt to extend similar safeguards to Indian users as the US users enjoy is a welcome step. That would also be consistent with the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights endorsed by the UNHRC.

Synopsis: A 22-year-old climate activist got arrested for misusing a toolkit. Such instances raise a question of alleged misuse of power by the government officials.   

Read More – Toolkit conspiracy case and its imapct on India- Explained Pointwise – ForumIAS Blog 

Background: 

• The Delhi Police has already registered multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) post the 26th January farmer protest in Delhi. 
• They have now arrested Disha Ravi, a climate activist from Bengaluru for editing a toolkit published on 3rd February by climate activist Greta Thunberg. It was used by social media users to protest against the farm laws.   

What is a tool kit? 

• It is simply a document containing a set of directives for social media campaigners. 
• It includes the hashtags to be used, persons to be targeted, duration of campaign and other things for a systematic and synchronized online campaign.  

Reason for Arrest: 

• The allegation is that the toolkit was made by Pro – Khalistani separatists. Thus,  editing it amounted to sedition and incitement to riots. 
• The government believes that activist is part of a Global conspiracy to incite violence in the country by secessionists based in Punjab. 

Issues with Arrest: 

• First, the Delhi Police didn’t’ seek permission from the state Police. By that, it disobeyed interstate arrest guidelines formulated by the Delhi High Court. Further the accused was not allowed to be properly represented by a counsel. 

• Second, the toolkit doesn’t contain any directions which led to direct incitement of violence. It was a necessary condition for sedition. 
• Third, it undermines democratic power when people are arrested due to excessive suspicion and not on merits. Thereby undermining due process. 
• Fourth, such arrest shows non judicious use of police power which will diminish India’s Global image. 

Way Forward: 

• The focus should be on addressing the tolerance gap in governance and not on using more repressive strategies. 
• The masses shouldn’t feel that their rights are not respected by the government and free speech should not be curbed by illegitimate means. 
• In the case of Ravi, an impartial investigation to establish her crime should be done. 

Recently Climate activist in India was arrested in the Greta Thunberg toolkit case. Delhi police filed an FIR and issued a non-bailable warrant against two other persons related to the case. Many activists are of the opinion that the arrests are allegedly politically motivated and the government is silencing its critics. But it is just one side of the argument.

What is Tool Kit?

• A toolkit is a set of essential guidelines or suggestions to get something done. The contents of the tool kit differ depending upon the activity. For example, the recent self-regulation tool kit by OTT platforms for self-regulation. 
• The tool kit is also released by governments. For example, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) has a toolkit for better implementation of IPR (Intellectual Property Right) in India.
• A tool kit is also used during protests. It contains pieces of information to help the protesters to promote their campaign and to become  popular as much as possible.
• It was used more actively in Wall Street protests of 2011, Hong Kong protests of 2019, and anti-CAA protests across India.
• During the anti-CAA protests, a toolkit suggested places to hold protests, Twitter hashtags to use, and other similar guides were shared on social media.

What is the Greta Thunberg toolkit case?

Greta Thunberg is an 18-year-old Swedish environmental activist. She shared a toolkit on Twitter during the anti-farm law protests. The tool kit suggested few activities like creating a Twitter storm and protesting outside Indian embassies, etc. Due to severe criticism, the activist deleted the tweet within a few minutes. However, it already got circulated on social media.

The Cyber Cell of Delhi Police filed an FIR against unknown people for creating and spreading the toolkit. The Police also claimed the Poetic Justice Foundation (PJF) as a key conspirator. (Poetic Justice Foundation is responsible for pro-Khalistani activities). The police also accused the PJF of waging a “social, economical and cultural war against India”.

The Delhi Police claimed a Climate Activist in India as the editor of “toolkit Google doc” and a “key conspirator” in the toolkit formulation and distribution. The Delhi Police arrested the activist and issued a non-bailable warrant against two other persons.

Previous such example:

The activists are claiming these arrests as politically motivated and an example of the government silencing its critics. These were,

• Sitaram Yechury, a well-known politician
• Yogendra Yadav, an activist and academic
• Jayati Ghosh, an economist
• Rahul Roy, a documentary filmmaker
• Apoorvanand, a Delhi University professor.

What are the existing provisions for such arrest?

1. The Government enacted the Information Technology (IT) Act 2000 for matters related to cybercrime and e-commerce. Based on the Act, the Government can punish for any crime committed through a computer or a network. The Act can charge foreigners also.
2.  The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act of 1967. The Act aims to prevent the activities and associations involved in unlawful activities effectively. In 2019 the act was amended to include the provisions of designating an individual as a terrorist. The Law prescribes the death penalty or life imprisonment as maximum punishment.
3. Sedition cases under IPC section 124A (Indian Penal Code). Sedition is defined as any action that brings or attempts to bring contempt or hatred towards the government of India. This section provides a maximum sentence of up to life imprisonment.
4. Criminal defamation under section 499 of the IPC. This section defines defamation as a communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual person, product, group, business, government, religion, or nation.
5. Several states have also enacted a few specific laws to govern the criticisms. For example, the Draft Bill of Maharashtra’s Shakti Act has a stringent provision for offenders who post defamatory messages on social media.

1. Not all the critics got arrested under these laws. These laws have utility in combating anti-national, secessionist and terrorist individuals and organizations. Few highly publicized cases cannot be the example of politically motivated arrests.
2. The laws were enacted to prevent the individual/organisation from indulging in contempt of government. This is essential for the smooth functioning of democracy.
3. There are instances where activists are involved in destabilizing the democratically elected government. These laws act as a strong defence against such activities aimed to overthrow the government.
4. Prevent the sovereignty of India: India is surrounded by countries like Pakistan, China. So India needs to prevent foreign influences in Indian policymaking. These laws aid the government in preventing undue foreign influences.

Judicial interventions on such cases in the past:

The Supreme Court in various instances regulated and restricted the politically motivated arrests but at the same time, the Court also punished the wrongdoers.

1. In G. Narasimhan & Others vs T. V. Chokkappa (1972) case: the Supreme Court held that a person could be defamed only if there is a definite, identifiable and established evidence.
2. In Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel vs State of Gujarat (2008) case: the Supreme Court held that the registration of a case against a foreigner for an offence committed outside India was illegal. The court further held that the government had no jurisdiction for such offences.
3. In K. T. M. S. Abdul Cader v. Union of India (1977) case: The Madras High Court accepted the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Indian Parliament. However, the court also held that such law would be ineffective so long as the foreigner remains outside India.

So in conclusion, a foreigner can be dealt with the Indian law only if he is present within the territory. Under this only, Ajmal Kasab was tried in India for the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.

Further read Criminalisation of government criticisms

Challenges faced by the government in arresting activists:

1. The government’s stringent action on criticisms attracts a confluence of such activists leading to various troubles. Like severe criticism of government policies and initiatives, false propaganda, etc.
2. The stringent action of government is also bringing down India’s image in the international arena. Many times arresting a famous activist coincides with foreign government criticising Indian acts. For example, many countries explicitly issued statements against the arrest of CAA protesters and criticised India without consulting and analysing the Act.
3. The stringent action on activists is also seen as a violation of the Fundamental Right. Like the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly.
4. Global Human Rights Watch also mentions arrests on activists as a violation of Human Rights.
5. It is also seen as a burden to Indian Judiciary and reducing the accountability of the police for their abuses.
6. It can also create an image among supporters like they are free to commit abuses against communities who are in minority.

Suggestions:

1. The government has to strike the midline between constructive criticism and criticisms destabilising India. So, to achieve that the government has to set up a committee to examine and supervise the process. Like
   • Designating individuals and organisations as a threat.
   • Investigation of cases in Fair and Just manner etc.
2. The government has to train Law enforcement authorities to prevent the problem of misuse.
3. The government can also try implementing the following steps. Such as
   • Barring the state governments, local bodies and other institutions (statutory functions) from filing numerous suits.
   • Providing lesser punishments such as corrections, apologies, and retractions, for  lesser form of crimes.

India is the largest democracy in the world. Right to dissent is considered as the lifeblood of any democracy. So, the government should restrict the politically motivated arrest. But at the same time checking the divisive forces is also essential for the government.

Synopsis: The government’s use of is blocking powers under Section 69A of Information and Technology Act 2000 (I.T Act) attracted criticism. There is a need to reforms the blocking powers to ensure free speech in Indian democracy.

Background:

• Twitter suspended some user accounts based on Emergency restriction orders issued by Government under Section 69A. Govt. issued this order in wake of violence in farmer’s protest on 26th January in Delhi. 
• The apparent reason behind such an order was the use of a controversial hashtag #ModiPlanningFarmerGenocide. It could have disturbed the public order.
• However, later on, Twitter reactivated some of the accounts that didn’t violate Indian law. It attracted a sharp reaction from the Indian Government. A non-compliance order against Twitter and its employees was issued for violating Section 69A.
• At present, a temporary peace has been established, after a meeting between Twitter officials and the government. 

Government’s power to block online users:

1. Section 69A of I.T Act 2000:
   • It empowers the government to order an intermediary for blocking access to any information in the digital world.
   • The grounds for exercising the power are; threat to national security, public order, sovereignty and integrity of the country etc.
   • A punishment up to 7 years can be imposed on intermediaries who don’t comply with the government’s blocking orders.
2. Blocking Rules 2009:
   • It tells the procedure which needs to be followed for blocking online content. As per these rules, the orders are subject to review by government committees. Further all orders and complaints should remain strictly confidential.

• Issues with Blocking Power:

1. 1. First, the government can issue restricting orders without any evidence. It undermines the Fundamental Right to free speech.
   2. Second, the confidentiality of orders makes it very difficult for users to challenge it in open courts. There is no requirement of giving any reason or hearing opportunity is a clear violation of due process. 
   3. Third, These rules make censorship an easy and costless option. It places the burden of going to court and gathering the evidence on the user. 
   4. Fourth, The framing of section 69A is in such a way that protection of online free speech mainly depends on the courage shown by intermediaries against government’s blocking orders.

Way Forward:

1. Reforms should take place in compliance with prior judgments of SC. In the Shreya Singhal case, the court allowed challenges to blocking orders in high courts. In the Kashmir Internet ban case, the court said any order restricting access to the internet should be put in the public domain.
2. The government should block access to information only when an affected party is given a fair hearing in courts. Direct blocking should be permissible only in emergency situations.
3. Blocking orders must be put in the public domain along with proper reasoning. The power of government to limit the flow of information needs to be rationalized.

At present the extent of free speech depends upon the capacity of multinational social-media platforms to face governments. Twitter managed to stand up against a clear case of overreach. However, other companies may not show similar courage, especially in cases of borderline overreach thereby threatening free speech. Thus, the demand to ensure free speech must come from citizens themselves. 

Synopsis: The government should consider allowing the Over-The-Top (OTT) services to self-regulate themselves.  Recently, they published a new tool kit to implement the self-regulation code of 2020.

Read – Self-regulatory toolkit by OTTs for implementation of Self Regulation Codes, 2020 – ForumIAS Blog

Background

• The Over-The-Top (OTT) services in India have witnessed an increase in subscription revenues during the Pandemic. The growth has been so significant that major films started releasing over OTTs, against the earlier trends.
• The growth of OTT and the absence of censorship regulation for the OTT’s supported the growth of creative talent in the film-making industry.
• However, there are growing concerns regarding the misuse of creative freedom. Many court cases filed against them.
  • • For instance, in UP the Amazon Prime Video series has been charged with cyberterrorism, obscenity, promoting social enmity, and defiling places of worship.
    • Similarly, in M.P, a petition has been filed, seeking a court direction to bring OTT channels under the censorship laws.
• Following these developments, the I&B Ministry stated its intention to bring regulatory code on the content for OTT platforms.
• In this backdrop, recently the Internet-based Over-The-Top (OTT) services operationalized a self-regulation code. 

Why the government needs to allow the self-regulation code?

• First, the code of self-regulation is in accordance with the Indian rule of law. It accepts IPC rules, laws on women’s and children’s rights, copyright and age-appropriate certification, and parental control. It also upholds the constitutional right to free speech.
• Second, it is also consistent with the 2016 Shyam Benegal committee recommendation on film certification. Some important recommendations are,
  • Creative expression should not be curbed in the process of classification of films. It leaves viewing decisions to audiences.
  • Furthermore, it also recommended for classifying films by viewer age.
  • It called for ensuring transparency in the way reviewing bodies are constituted.

The idea of pre-censoring films and forcing arbitrary cuts based on prejudice is against the values of liberal societies. Hence, the self-regulatory code operationalized by the Over-The-Top (OTT) services needs to be given a chance.

Synopsis: The government ordered twitter to shut down user accounts connected with the farm protests. This order hampers fundamental rights and also reveals a complex relationship between the government and large platforms.

Introduction

The growing digitization of Indian society can be seen in the ongoing farmers’ protest. A new hashtag trends on Twitter for and against the farm laws or protests every day.

• Twitter is quite significant in India despite a lower number of users as compared to Facebook or WhatsApp. It is because Twitter is the default social network for political leaders and foreign governments to make statements.
• The government exercised its powers under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act to block user accounts critical of the farm bills. 
• Suspended accounts are in a high number and include a diverse category of users from farm unions, activists, and press publications.

What are the issues in this decision?

The step is against the rights of the users who are not given reasons for the censorship. Secrecy impacts the public’s right to receive information, which is an essential part of the fundamental right to speech and expression.

1. Firstly, the public has incomplete information as the actual text of the legal orders was not disclosed. This is an anti-democratic practice that results in unchecked growth of illogical censorship and also leads to a lack of trust. 
2. Secondly, this outcome has been the failure of the Union executive and Supreme Court. Former framed the process for blocking websites in 2009 and included the secrecy provision; the later failed to examine it. 
   • For example, the court stated in Shreya Singhal, that a person whose website or account was blocked under section 69A could approach a court. However, accessing legal remedies is difficult when the direction for blocking is secret.
3. Thirdly, several state governments are refusing to publish orders on internet shutdowns even after RTI is filed. 
4. Fourthly, due to absence of any prior notice, users are not given an opportunity to present their defense. This is conflicting with the principles of natural justice.  This again goes back to the vagueness and the design faults in the process of how directions under Section 69A are issued.

The way forward 

• In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, the court was judging the constitutional acceptability of the telecommunications shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir. In its judgment, It gave a direction for pro-active publication of all orders for internet shutdowns by the government. 
• Thus, the directions of blocking should be made public in other cases as well.

Conclusion 

• Twitter refused to comply with directions by citing the policy of proportionality. This unconstitutional law is being applied to its maximum capacity. It is confusing that a government formed under the Constitution may be failing to fulfill its duties when other platforms that trade in our data for profit are ready.

 https://blog.forumias.com/polity/constitutional-bodies/

Source – The Hindu

Syllabus – GS 3 – Challenges to internal security through communication networks, role of media and social networking sites in internal security challenges, basics of cybersecurity; money-laundering and its prevention.

Synopsis – Society needs protection from disinformation. The best approach to deal with it, is to take advantage of the mechanisms already developed for cyber-security.

Cyber-attack and disinformation

• Cyber-attacks are aimed at computer infrastructure, while disinformation exploits inherent cognitive biases and logical fallacies.
• Cyber-attacks are executed using viruses, botnets, and social engineering. Disinformation attacks use manipulated information through deep fakes, and cheap fakes.
• Cyber-attacks and disinformation attacks have always been handled individually.  But it is time to accept that disinformation is a cyber-security issue.

What is Cognitive Hacking?

Cognitive hacking is an attack that seeks to manipulate the perception of people by taking advantage of their psychological vulnerabilities. The purpose of the attack is behavioural changes, induced through exposure to disinformation.

• Examples of Cognitive hacking-  unfounded concern were induced about US 2020 presidential election fraud by disinformation.

How DDoS and disinformation are linked?

1. A Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attacks target websites and online services. The aim is to flood them with more traffic than the server or network can handle. It prevents the completion of legitimate requests and disrupts the services.
2. Similarly, a well-coordinated disinformation campaign floods disinformation to an extent that people start to deny the truth.
3. Disinformation is used as psychological manipulation of people into performing an action on a mass scale.

Countermeasure for disinformation attacks

The cyber-security experience can be used to develop disinformation defense systems to mitigate disinformation risks.

• First, this can be done by analyzing the tactics of disinformation. It helps to understand the identities of malicious actors, their activities, and behaviors from the cyber-security domain.
• Second, Layered Security- Mechanisms such as Defence-in-Depth can be used to mitigate disinformation threats. A series of proactive filters are required to filter out the fake information.
  • Authenticity at the time of login should be the first layer. If the disinformation is still posted, Human and AI can be used for its detection.

• Third, an Information sharing framework like ISACs is required to collect and exchange information about the identity, content, actions, and behaviors of disinformation actors.

Way forward

• The technology sector, civil society, and the government should collaborate to make consumers aware of cyber-attacks.
• Media should be used for spreading awareness among common people.
• Taking advantage of existing cybersecurity frameworks, norms, and tactics is the optimum way to meet this threat.

What is the News?

17 Over-the-Top (OTT) Platforms have adopted a “toolkit” for effective implementation of the self-regulation code of 2020. The toolkit will be effective from February 10, 2021.

What are OTT platforms?

• It is a streaming media service offered directly to viewers via the Internet. Examples include Netflix, Amazon’s Prime Video, Hotstar, and others. Currently, there is no law or autonomous body governing digital content.

Universal Self Regulation Codes, 2020

In 2020, OTT platforms signed a universal ‘self-regulation’ code under the Internet and Mobile Association of India(IAMAI). The key features of the code are:

• Regulatory environment: Information Technology Act, 2000 is the primary governing statute for online content.
• Age classification: The code includes a framework for age classification and content descriptions for titles as well as access control tools.
• Consumer Complaints:: Each OTT platform will have to set up a Consumer Complaints Department. Other than that an advisory panel to deal with complaints, appeals, and escalations will also be set up.

Government’s Response to the Code:

• The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting had refused to support the self-regulatory code. The grounds for rejection were that it lacks independent third-party monitoring, does not have a well-defined Code of Ethics, does not clearly enunciate prohibited content. Moreover, there is an issue of conflict of interest in grievance redressal.

Implementation Toolkit:

• Purpose: Toolkit will help in the implementation of the code 2020 of the OTT platforms. It will also address the feedback received from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on the issues of conflict of interest and prohibited content.
• Implementation of the Code: It will also frame the code of ethics and guiding principles for the signatory OTTs.
• Guidance: Further, The toolkit will guide OTTs on various dimensions like:
  • Grievance redressal mechanism
  • Relevant laws of the land,
  • Awareness programs for consumers
  • Training programs for creative and legal teams
  • Implementation of a detailed audit and compliance mechanism.
• Secretariat: A ‘secretariat’ will be set up for monitoring the implementation of the code. It would have representatives from the OTT platforms and IAMAI.

Source: The Hindu

Source- The Hindu

Syllabus– GS 3 – Awareness in the fields of IT, space, computers, robotics, nano-technology, bio-technology and issues relating to intellectual property rights IPR.

Synopsis- Data privacy issues related to government technology platforms and their possible solutions.

Background-

• Recently, WhatsApp has rollbacked their privacy policy after facing a huge backlash from users. Many users started switching to competitor apps such as Signal and Telegram.
• This shows that Indian consumers are becoming more aware and concerned about data privacy.
• However, since the first COVID lockdown, at least 35 mobile apps have been launched across India. All these apps specifically address COVID-19 related information. But the privacy issues in these Apps have not been addressed. 

What are the challenges with government technology platforms?

• First, Government monopoly – Governments typically have a monopoly in providing public services. Thus, porting out or digital migration is not possible in that case. For example, there is no alternative to Aadhar, Aarogya setu app.
• Second, lack of consistency– Most of the COVID-19 apps launched by State governments have lacked consistency in terms of the features, functionalities, and information updates. This is due to the reason that updation of data in government tech platforms carried out manually.
• Third, Data privacy is also a cause of concern in many of these government applications. For example- Most of the apps are only informative and intended to issue advisories. But they have sought permissions for location, photos, storage, and camera.
• Fourth, most of these apps failed to meet the necessity and proportionality principle of data privacy.
  • • Necessity- According to this principle, data must be adequate, relevant, and limited to the purpose for which they are processed. In simple words, is the data necessary for the mobile application to achieve its goal?
    • Proportionality- If the action must be sanctioned by law, then it must have a legitimate aim. Apart from that, there must be procedural guarantees against any abuses also.

What needs to be done to improve government technology platforms?

• First, The government should work on a collective database structure by combining two or more state/organisation’s apps. This can prevent multiple unwanted permission requests in apps and can also address data privacy issues. For example, integrating Aarogya Setu app with the State mobile apps to provide integrated service.
• Second, the government can follow a decentralized approach. Many European countries are moving towards a decentralized system for contact tracing apps. These apps offer greater protection against abuse and misuse of people’s data compared to centralized apps. This is because,
  • • The chances of data abuse and misuse are less because information residing in many individual systems and not in a centralized system.
• Third, clear regulation on government technology platforms. This can contribute to improve public services and also improve public trust in the government’s technology initiatives.
• Fourth, structured audit on government-backed technological initiatives. The negatives can be rectified and improve public services. The positives, on the other hand, will boost the government as a potential service provider.

Way forward-

State governments launched mobile apps have proved government has the capacity to deliver technology services to people. But it needs a little course correction to improve public confidence.

What is the News?
The Government of India has asked Twitter to follow Indian laws. The government has also expressed disappointment over partial compliance with its orders.

What was the issue?

• The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology(MeitY) ordered Twitter to block several Twitter accounts for posing a threat to law and order. The order was issued under Section 69A of the Information Technology(IT) Act.
• On this, Twitter blocked several accounts. But very soon it reactivated several of them citing free speech and because it found the content newsworthy.

Government’s response:

• The government has said that Twitter was free to formulate its own rules and guidelines. But the Indian laws which are enacted by the Parliament must be followed irrespective of Twitter’s own rules.
• On free speech, the government has said that freedom of speech and expression is provided under Article 19 (1) of the Constitution of India.
• However, freedom of expression is not absolute, and it is subject to reasonable restrictions as mentioned in Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India.

Section 69A of the Information Technology(IT) Act:

• When was it introduced? Section 69A of the IT Act was introduced by an amendment to the Act in 2008.
• Powers: It allows the government to block public access to any intermediary in the interest of
  • Sovereignty and integrity of India
  • Defence of India
  • Security of the state
  • Friendly relations with the foreign States or
  • Public order or
  • Preventing incitement of any cognisable offence relative to the above.
• Intermediaries: The intermediaries under the Act include; telecommunication companies, internet service providers, network operators, web-hosting services, search engines, payment gateways and other relevant portals and services.
• Procedure: Section 69A provides the government with the power to block public access. But the procedure to do that is listed in the IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
• Penal Provisions: The Act says prescribes punishment for any intermediary (internet platform) for failure to comply with the government direction. Punishment can be imprisonment for up to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

Source: The Hindu

Source: The Indian Express

Syllabus: GS

Synopsis: MHA has recommended criminalizing the spread of misleading news about vaccines. This step would have many repercussions.

Introduction

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has issued a recommendation letter to all state governments. In that, the MHA mentioned that state governments can pursue criminal action against individuals and organisations for spreading misleading rumours about the vaccine’s efficacy. 

This recommendation has been issued as per the provision of the Disaster Management Act (DMA), 2005 and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.

It has again raised the issue of curtailing free speech under the cover of fake news.  

Restrictions on Free Speech in India

• According to the constitution, the right to free speech can only be restricted on the basis of valid grounds listed under Article 19(2). Grounds are interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality.
• The SC has also stated that the grounds of restrictions on free speech must be inspected thoroughly. Vague and overbroad grounds are unconstitutional.

What can be the potential outcomes of the suggestion given by MHA? 

The orders by MHA will give the police unrestricted freedom to detain and prosecute individuals for raising questions about government actions. For instance, some state governments used state regulations under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 and DMA to criminalise fake news and unnecessary information during the lockdown. 

There were many examples in the past about its potential outcomes. They are

1. First, the CPA (Criminal Justice and Police Accountability) Project’s study found that many FIRs had been registered across Madhya Pradesh for spreading rumors about COVID-19. In one instance, FIR registered against an individual who declared support for Tablighi Jamaat on WhatsApp. 
2. Second, Rights and Risks Analysis Group (RRAG) report has documented 55 cases of targeting of journalists during the lockdown. State governments have prosecuted people for reporting on the mishandling of the pandemic, corruption, and the lack of state support for migrant workers. 

What should have the government done instead?

Public trust in the government during a crisis depends upon transparency, not criminal prosecution. So the government has to avoid using laws to suppress the critics.

• The democratic government needs to be effectively transparent and accountable. 
• The government can involve in scientific responses to valid criticism and unscientific misconceptions. This will build strong public opinion and support for the government.

Conclusion 

The government violates the principle of informed consent. There is also a failure to communicate necessary information to the public which is important for healthcare. The government has to work on it. 

Recently Indian government issued a notice to Twitter after it restored more than 250 suspended accounts. On January 31st Twitter suspended these accounts as per the government’s order. These accounts were allegedly promoting misinformation about the farmer’s protests.

The tech giants with their power to influence the market, society, and governments are involved in unethical trade practices and antitrust activities all over the world. India is not an exception to them. This raises the important question to regulate tech giants in India.

Tech giants controversial practices in India:

First, The photo-sharing app of Facebook (Instagram) went into controversy in 2020. It failed to take any action over the controversy called Bois Locker Room (mostly run by Indian teenagers).

Second, Facebook employees themselves are questioning the procedure and content regulation practice of Facebook’s Indian team. 11 of its employees also wrote a letter to the Facebook management about the policy head decision to allow certain posts that spread hate and racial content.

Third, CCI (Competition Commission of India) initiated two antitrust investigations against Google in 2020. One for unfairly promoting its own payments app (Google Pay). The other for involving in anti-competitive practices by restricting companies from creating modified versions of Android OS for smart TVs.

Fourth, In 2019, the Enforcement Directorate (E.D.) commenced its investigation into alleged violations by Amazon and Flipkart for their prohibition of FDI in business-to-consumer (B2C) enterprises except where specific conditions are met.

Fifth, Twitter displayed a map of Leh as part of China and later as part of Jammu and Kashmir state (instead of a separate Union Territory). For that , a legal notice has been served to Twitter.

Impact of Tech giants in India:

First, the usage of the targeted algorithm: tech giants are using users’ search data to push advertisements to the users. The ads are specifically targeted to users based on their recent search over the internet.

Second, there is a lack of transparency in the way tech companies process user data. This has raised serious privacy concerns and also created anti-trust investigations by various governments. The Cambridge Analytica scandal of Facebook is one such example. The recent WhatsApp privacy policy also created widespread concern.

Third, the tech giants involved in predatory pricing and monopolistic trade practices. They usually drive out competitors using anti-competitive behaviour. For example, accusations on Amazon favouring their self-branded products over third-party products.

Fourth, the impact on big tech giants on society. The big techs are the foremost medium of fake news, hate speech, etc. These were seen as un-democratic activities by countries.

Fifth, their potential to influence the country. The combined market capitalization of the big techs is more than the GDP of most countries except China and the USA. The sheer economic presence and their market presence (like Google handles more than 90% of online searches) make them create aggressive clauses in their terms and conditions, contract agreements etc.

How India is regulating big Techs?

First, The government enacted the Competition Act, 2002. The Act established the Competition Commission of India (CCI). Later the Act was amended in 2007. The CCI has been established to eliminate practices having an adverse effect on competition. The commission also promotes and sustain competition, protect the interests of consumers. The CCI will step in if any of the tech giants will get involved in the anti-competitive practice.

For example, In 2018, the CCI concluded its investigation into Google’s advertising policies. The CCI declared that Google had abused its dominant position and involved in the anti-competitive practice. The CCI also imposed fine on Google of Rs.136 crore.

Second, The Information and Technology Act, 2000 govern all activities related to the use of computer resources in India. Some of the important provisions of the Act are

• Section 69 of the Act gives power to the government to issue directions “to intercept, decrypt or monitor…any information generated, transmitted, received or stored” in any digital equipment.
• Section 69A of the Act provides power to the government to block access to any information generated, transmitted, received or stored or hosted in the digital space.
• Intermediaries (providers of network service, telecom service, Internet service and web hosting) are required to preserve and retain specified information. They also have to obey the directions issued by the government from time to time.
• In return intermediaries are protected from legal action for user-generated content (The big techs used this clause to move away from liability and responsibility in digital space).

Challenges in regulating big techs:

First, smartphones and the Internet of Things (IoT) have become a major driver for the growth of big tech companies in the last decade. India is currently witnessing a massive growth in smartphone usage and IoT. India is also witnessing  increase in the population of users who are coming online for the first time. So regulating Big Techs strictly will leave the consumer with no other alternative. Hence, it is important to cater to the needs of people.

Second, everyday life is dependent on various apps and technologies. Nowadays technology is linked with remote working and studying, public transport, shopping, telemedicine, on-demand music, and video streaming, etc. Tech giants with their presence in digital space created a monopoly in essential services.

Third, the essential nature of the services provided by them. These tech giants provide Freedom of Expression to individual and also made billions of people to depend on their services. Like, Google on the internet, Amazon on e-commerce etc.

Fourth, the challenge of cross-platform connectivity: Users of Facebook and Google can sign in and access services over food, grocery delivery, and various other companies. This can be used to mine the accounts of users. This creates a challenge to regulate the tech giants alone. To get a proper desired output, one need to regulate the entire ecosystem. But it is not feasible.

Suggestions to regulate Big Techs:

It is essential to strengthen the Competition Law. In this regard, the Competition Law Review committee has recommended the following:

• First, an introduction of a ‘Green Channel’: This is to enable fast-paced regulatory approvals for the vast majority of mergers and acquisitions that have no concerns regarding adverse effects on competition.
• Second, introducing a dedicated bench in NCLAT (National Company Law Appellate Tribunal) to hear appeals under the Competition Act.
• Third, opening up of CCI offices at the regional level: This will help to carry out non-adjudicatory functions and interaction with State Governments in controlling the Big Techs.

Recently in the US also House of Representatives panel submitted the report of a bipartisan investigation into the working of Big Techs. They recommended,

• First, the Structural separations of the big techs: By breaking big tech’s companies into many smaller ones. This will reduce their undue influence over the digital market space.
• Second, to prohibit mergers and acquisitions : putting a “presumptive prohibition” against big tech companies.
• Third, companies should be prohibited from operating in an “adjacent line of business”.

Considering the size of the Indian economy which is in the top five Economies of the World, controlling Big Tech is the key to ensure fair competition. The need of the hour is the passage of the Personal Data Protection Bill along with the incorporation of the recommendations of the Competition Law Review Committee and exploring the possibility of implementing the US House of Representatives panel’s report.

Source: The Hindu

Gs2: Government Policies and Interventions for Development in various sectors and Issues arising out of their Design and Implementation.

Synopsis: Frequent internet shutdown by the state has many negative consequences. Governments must find alternatives to balance civil liberties and security.

Background:

1. The Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017 under the Indian Telegraph Act contains the procedure to restrict internet access.
2. The Rules empowers the central and state governments to suspend internet services during public emergencies or for protecting the public interest.
3. However, this provision has been frequently used in India. In the past 4 years, India has witnessed more than 400 internet shutdowns throughout the country. Which is the highest compared to any democracy in the world.
4. For instance, after the abrogation of Article 370, J&K witnessed the longest Internet shutdown across the world.
5. Most recently, Internet services were shut down in Delhi NCR following the violence that erupted during the Farmers protest on Republic day.
6. Many civil society organizations including UN rights groups have termed these shutdowns a form of collective punishment for people, and an overreach of governments on citizens’ rights and liberties.

What are the views of the Supreme court in this regard?

• In January 2020, the Supreme Court has declared that the right to access the Internet is one of the fundamental rights.
• It is a part of Article 19 of the Constitution along with the freedom to carry on any trade, business or occupation over the medium of the Internet.

What are the negative impacts of Internet shutdown?

Arbitrary internet shutdowns have many undetermined consequences. Particularly during the crisis of the pandemic.

1. First, Lack of internet connectivity or digital illiteracy will force many citizens to be excluded from social and economic systems.
2. Second, Blanket bans on digital connectivity during the COVID-19 crisis will widen digital inequalities.
3. Third, it will cut off the most vulnerable i.e. the elderly, and pregnant women, from accessing vital digital health services, health and welfare alerts.
4. Fourth, it denies access to learning for students as most of the classes are shifting online to maintain physical distancing norms.
5. Fifth, internet shutdown will cause large-scale disruptions in the economy. Many white-collar employment sectors, including IT, financial and consulting services, have resorted to working from home option. For example, according to an estimation India has lost over ₹20,000 crore in 2020 because of Internet shutdowns.

What is the Way forward?

• Internet bans should be used as a last resort and must be enforced following well-formulated protocols.
• Emergency response and relief systems for the vulnerable should be planned in advance before enforcing internet shutdowns.
• Other alternatives should be used. Cyber divisions of law enforcement agencies can be upgraded to use new-age innovations such as mass surveillance systems and communication interceptors.
• The government should focus on balancing civil liberties with security concerns. For that modern, independent institutions having expertise in this domain, can be created.

Source – The Hindu

Syllabus- GS 3 – Challenges to internal security through communication networks, the role of media and social networking sites in internal security challenges, basics of cybersecurity; money-laundering and its prevention

Synopsis- Twitter unilaterally restored accounts despite government order for blocking.

Background

• The Ministry of Electronics and IT ordered Twitter to block more than 250 tweets/Twitter accounts. The order was issued for were making fake, intimidating, and provocative tweets.
• The development came in the wake of violence in Delhi on January 26 during a tractor parade of farmers, protesting against the three farm bills.
• Accounts included were linked to an influential magazine, members of an opposition party, and the protest movement such as Kisan Ekta Morcha.
• Many accounts were blocked after the order. However, the majority of them are restored.

Under which Act Twitter was ordered to withhold the accounts?

Section 69(A) of the IT Act 2000 empowers the government to order block online content to an intermediary. The grounds for such order include sovereignty and integrity of India, defense of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states or public order, or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offense.

It is the same section, under which Chinese Apps have been banned in India. The content attached to the said hashtag had been found to be directly falling under Section 69A of the IT Act. Twitter may face penal action for not complying with directions issued.

This section has been criticized for the secrecy of its process. However, in Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015) SC upheld the validity of this section.

Way forward

The government’s stand on farmer’s protest is debatable. However, the inflammatory content and Incitement to genocide cannot be interpreted as freedom of speech as it is a threat to law and order.

This situation may lead to a face-off between tech giant and the government.

Source- The Hindu

Syllabus– GS 3 – Awareness in the fields of IT, space, computers, robotics, nano-technology, bio-technology, and issues relating to intellectual property rights IPR.

Synopsis- The lawmakers are facing the confusion between managing the misuse of monopoly power by major Internet corporations and the economic income generated by them.

Introduction-

In the US and Europe, governments are using antitrust regulations against Internet giants such as Facebook and Google. This is to stop the alleged abuse of the dominant position.

Some are comparing this case to the prior U.S. antitrust inquiries. At the conclusion of this inquiry in 1982, the break-up of the AT&T was dictated by the Department of Justice.

What are the key differences this time when compared to the earlier antitrust investigations?

There are three major variations relative to the earlier investigation-

1. First, Information non-competition–  These big industries are based on information or data. There is no competition between 2 similar companies. While earlier telecom companies faced competition due to limited network capacity.
2. Second, Jurisdictional issues– Telecom is jurisdictional and regulators have the authority to create guidelines for orderly actions. In contrast, Internet firms operate globally. Thus, it is often difficult for various country regulators to set international laws of obligation and compliance.
3. Third, Non-excludable– The nature of goods and services provided by the Internet is non-excludable, unlike telecom. It means it is not exclusive for anyone or anyone can access or enter into it.

How information goods provided by private Internet firms causing problems?

This non-excludable and non-rival model is creating the following issues:

• First, Personalize Advertisement and third-party sharing– Internet businesses are earning through targeted ads by sharing personal information and data to third-party for monetization purposes.
• Second, Monopoly- Tech giants are involved in the wrong means such as takeover or suppression of competition, resulting in an uneven playing ground for other organizations.

However, there are positives externalities too, such as-

• Google Maps API [application Program Interface] use by all logistics and transport companies and Facebook API for advertisement.
• Recently, Google announced to provide accurate and timely information about vaccine distribution.

What are the possible solutions to regulate Tech giants?

• First, need to subsidize the good– Tax subsidies should be granted for tech giant’s orderly behaviour.
• Second, there should be controlled expansion of products and services. This needs to be done without damaging the interests of customers and smaller rival companies.
• Third, as pointed out by the Australian government, the tech giants such as Google and Facebook must negotiate a fair payment for services such as news by the media industry.
• Forth, to use the power of public voice. For example- WhatsApp has delayed the rollout of its updated privacy policy after facing a huge backlash of tens of millions of its customers.

Way forward-

The balance between controlling the monopolistic tendencies of internet giants and establishing an environment of positive externalities must be created.

 A secure digital space needs to be established where the human rights of all consumers of digital resources are secured.

What is the news?
The Supreme Court in a recent hearing has said that stopping hate on television is essential for law and order.

• What was the case? A batch of petitions alleged that certain sections of the media communalized the Tablighi Jamaat congregation. It linked the congregation to a spike in the spread of COVID-19 infection

Key Highlights of the Supreme Court Order:

• The Supreme Court said that the Fair and truthful reporting is not a problem. The problem arises when the reporting is used to agitate others.
• Hence, it asked the Central Government about its powers under Cable TV Networks (Regulation) Act 1994. Under this act, the government can control the broadcast of content (by electronic media) that has a tendency to incite violence.
• Government Response:
  • The Solicitor General said that the Government has powers to regulate or prohibit the transmission or re-transmission of any channel or programme for public order.
  • There is also a group under the Ministry to monitor broadcast content for violation.
  • However, the problem arises during live, discussion-based programmes, as there cannot be pre-censorship of such programmes.

Source: The Hindu

Source: Indian Express

GS-2: Government Policies and Interventions for Development in various sectors and issues arising out of their Design and Implementation.

Synopsis: Draft data protection law needs to be enacted in India to curb data privacy violations in India.

What is the issue?

• Recently, WhatsApp updated its terms of service (ToS) and privacy policy for users. It permits WhatsApp to share users’ data with Facebook and its companies with their consent.
• This data would include transaction data, mobile device information, IP addresses, and other metadata on how users interact with businesses on WhatsApp.
•  This is a classic case of an organization using its near-monopolistic power against the interest of Consumers.
• The government responded strongly by asking the platform to withdraw proposed changes. Along with this, the government sought their response to 14 queries related to their practices in India.

Why it is a cause of concern?

• First, Even though sharing will be done by notifying the user it is against the Principle Of Purpose Limitation. The principle has been used to address Privacy concerns at a global level.
• Second,  Facebook has a poor record on data protection of its users. For example, Analytica data scam during the 2016 US elections and Brexit.
• Third, recently there were reports stating that Facebook is entering into data-sharing deals with other tech firms like Apple, Amazon, Spotify.
• Fourth, it is a cause of concern because WhatsApp’s growth was mainly due to its virtue of protecting user privacy through end-to-end encryption. But, with the change in the privacy policy on users, they are breaking away from their core virtue.

What is the way forward?

• First, the government should pass the Personal Data Protection Bill (PDPB) 2019 because of the following reasons,
  • It has the provision on Principle Of Purpose Limitation. This would have restricted  WhatsApp’s action as it is illegal against the Principle Of Purpose Limitation.
  • Such practices are not allowed in the EU. Their users’ private data is protected by General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
• Second, given the digital proliferation in the country tech giants needs to be monitored closely through competent legal and regulatory frameworks.

In India, the User base of social media for communications and business is increasing at a fast pace. Hence, it should be the priority of the government to ensure a safer digital space. 

Synopsis: Issue of WhatsApp privacy policy has again raised the concern of data privacy in India. What are the options available with the government to handle this issue? 

Introduction  

Facebook’s revenue model uses data on its platform to allow advertisers to target relevant consumers. 

Now Facebook Inc. wants to integrate the services from WhatsApp, Instagram and Facebook. The intent behind this step is to monetise their use by consumers. 

WhatsApp is one of the most used Social Media App in India. It is capable to share user metadata and mobile information of Indian users with Facebook, its parent company.  

Now, Indian government is looking for ways to protect the data privacy of Indian Users.   

What are the steps that government can take? 

The Ministry of Electronics and IT has sent WhatsApp a series of queries. It includes, why Indian users would be sharing information with Facebook, unlike EU. 

• Data protection laws in the EU have strict restrictions on storage and transfer of user data. Thus, data transfer from WhatsApp to Facebook is not possible in such regions.  

• Whereas, in 2019, government in India diluted the provisions of Data protection bill. For, example, it only set the requirement of keeping sensitive personal data in India. Whereas, in the Srikrishna Committee recommended the same for all personal data.   
• The Indian government should also bring in a strong data protection bill which aligns with the recommendations of the Srikrishna Committee. 

• The committee tried to address concerns about online data privacy in line with the 2018 Puttaswamy judgment. 

However, data localisation also carries the possibility of domestic surveillance over Indian citizens.  

Way forward 

Privacy is better addressed by stronger contractual conditions on data sharing and better security tools being adopted by the applications that secure user data. Thus, with the data localisation, stronger checks on state surveillance are also required. 

• Recently, sitting US President Mr. Trump’s account was removed from online platforms like Twitter, Facebook. 
• This has divided the world with two contrasting views.  
• Few people say that the social media companies were right to suspend Trump’s accounts.  
• While others are concerned about the enormous power that these platforms wield over the public discourse, and their impact on democracy. 

Issue of Parler app removal from tech giant platforms 

• • Parler is a social networking site that remained as an alternative to Twitter.  
  • Recently, Amazon removed it from its cloud hosting service Amazon Web Services (AWS). (AWS). Similarly, Apple and Google removed Parler from their app stores. 
  • This incident demonstrated the enormous power that Amazon wields as a web infrastructure service provider. 
  •  This has also raised concerns about how the bigger tech players can destroy new competition due to their stronghold over the cloud infrastructure. For example,  

• • AWS controlled 45 per cent of the cloud infrastructure in 2019, while Google and Microsoft control much of the rest.  

Issues in action against Trump  

In many instances, the tech giants have responded with inconsistency in their actions.it has been discussed below with examples. 

• • First, In March 2020, Facebook and Twitter deleted posts by Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro and Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro for Covid19 misinformation. 

• • • But no action was taken against Trump, who was also propagating misinformation about the Pandemic. 

• • Second, during the Black Lives Matter protests Trump tweeted “When the looting starts, the shooting starts”. This was an act of glorifying violence. However, Twitter responded very lately to remove the tweet.  
  • Third, the action against Trump was only taken after he lost his political leverage. Congress had ratified the victory of President-elect Joe Biden before that. 
  • Fourth, Digital platforms are for-profit corporations. Over the years, digital platforms have never been neutral arbiters and are acting in the nexus with the state governments. 

• • •  For instance, these platforms have repeatedly blocked the ability of Wikileaks to accept donations on PayPal and other payment intermediaries. 

• • Fifth, after a 2018 court order, Trump was forced to unblock several dozen followers. The argument was put forward by petitioners that they were entitled to follow the official announcements and comment on public affairs of the handle.  

• • • If the same logic is applied in the case of Trump ban, he cannot be stopped from making public announcements by a social media company.   

What is the way forward? 

• • Experts agree that the rules and guidelines of social networks are not being consistently applied throughout the world.  
  • The issue should be resolved by setting up a common global rule for social networks. 
  • EU countries are the pioneers in regulating the tech giant with investigations, fines, and legislation. They have taught the world how to control these giants without expelling them from the country’s economy.  

Why in News?  

The Union government has asked WhatsApp to withdraw the proposed changes to its privacy policy. 

 Facts: 

 Questions Posed by Government to WhatsApp: 

 Source: Business Standard 

 Key Concerns over WhatsApp Privacy Policy: 

• • Privacy of Citizens: The policy should be reconsidered to respect the informational privacy, freedom of choice and data security of Indian citizens. 
  • Differential Policies: The privacy policy for European users specifically prohibits the use of any information shared with Facebook. This clause is not present in the privacy policy offered to Indian users. 
  • All or nothing approach: Government has objected to the all-or-nothing approach of WhatsApp. This approach forces users to accept the new service terms and privacy policies, without giving an option to opt-out. 
  • Supreme Court Judgments: Government has reminded WhatsApp about the Puttaswamy vs. Union of India(2017) judgment where the Supreme Court has ruled that Fundamental Right to Privacy is intrinsic to life and liberty and comes under Article 21 of the Indian constitution. 

 Further Reading on WhatsApp Privacy Policy: http://bit.ly/38Ww0jk

Article Source

Synopsis- Social media platforms need clear policies on which they commit to a consistent refusal to help heads of state incite violence.

Introduction- On January 6, when the extremists stormed the United States Capitol building, Trump’s social media accounts were active and communicating.

• After this incident, social media companies blocked particular communications including videos of the speech, and then suspended Trump’s accounts.
• Eventually, Trump was barred from using Facebook and Twitter.

How a ban on Trump has been justified by companies?

Soon after the ban, Critics pointed out that social media companies should not “censor” a president for making ‘Politically biased decisions’.

As per social media companies, Trump did not stop at expressing dissatisfaction about the electoral outcome. But he chose to insist that the election was “stolen”, calling for action. This took his speech beyond the realm of political opinion into the realm of incitement. Thus,

• • A head of state cannot be allowed to incite violence.
  • If restrictions were not enforced, Social media would have amplified the incitement, given the connection between his words and the violence.
  • Moreover, Trump has access to the mass media, thus it doesn’t affect his freedom of expression.

Challenges in front of Social Media Companies:

The First challenge is regarding what to allow on the platform

• • Social Media platforms have a major impact on public life, thus platforms ought to follow international human rights law, especially the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
    • For example; they must ensure they do not facilitate genocides such as the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar.
  • On the other hand, Social Media need to ensure democratic debates on the imp. Issues like the COVID-19 virus, vaccines, abortion, Kashmir, LGBTQ rights, or marital rape.

The Second challenge is linked to the speaker

• • Barring a whistle-blower would have more impact compared to the head of state. Because Whistle-blower has no access to mass media.
  • In contrast, a head of state like Trump who is barred from social media has access to the mass media.

The third challenge is regarding the measurement of communication effectiveness

It also varies depending on the speaker and the audience.

• • Incitement by a head of state is more dangerous than incitement by a powerless, ordinary individual because an influential speaker is much more likely to actually incite violence.
  • A powerful leader can persuade his followers that it is acceptable and even righteous to engage in violence.

Why a policy is required?

• Earlier in mid-2020, Facebook refused to regulate the US President’s inflammatory posts due to its “newsworthiness” exception.
• Earlier, while Twitter suspended another account posting copies of Trump’s tweets for glorifying violence, left the president’s tweets up. This was because of Twitter’s exception for public or elected officials’ speech which is seen as being in “public interest”.
• Now, these platforms have taken a step against incitement once the election result is confirmed.

Way Forward

Social media needs to deal with this kind of issue in future very seriously. The platforms like Facebook and Twitter (Fourth Pillar of Democracy) should not be circulating speech that is very likely to cause violence. They need clear policies in which they commit to a consistent refusal to help heads of state incite violence.

Context:

The recent WhatsApp privacy policy attracted widespread criticism among various sections of society for its latest privacy policy. Due to severe protests, WhatsApp has issued clarification related to its policy. But there is a wider concern about data protection in India.

Click here to read about the new Whatsapp privacy policy

What is the clarification WhatsApp has issued?

In its latest clarification, WhatsApp is trying to differentiate between “messages with friends or family” and “messages with a business”.

Whatsapp says that the latest changes only affect the “messages with a business”. Policy regarding “messages with friends or family” will remain the same.

In its clarification WhatsApp has issued the following statements:

• • Personal messages are protected by end-to-end encryption and neither accessed nor heard by WhatsApp or Facebook.
  • No log of personal messages or calls has been maintained due to “privacy and security risk”.
  • Location shared by users are also protected by end-to-end encryption and cannot be seen by WhatsApp or Facebook.
  • Any user’s contact is not shared with Facebook or any other App.
  • All the communications within WhatsApp groups are end-to-end encrypted and are not shared with Facebook for Ads.

How business messages are different?

• • Businesses on Facebook will be able to create Facebook shops to create an online store and interact with the users through WhatsApp.
  • WhatsApp will soon offer businesses with Facebook’s hosting services to manage their communication with users.
  • On these hosting services, Businesses will soon be provided with the facilities to manage WhatsApp chats with their customers, answer questions and send information like purchase receipts.
  • Businesses will be allowed to use the above information for their marketing, including ads on Facebook.
  • However, Businesses using Facebook’s hosting services will be labelled, to make the user aware of what follows.
  • If the users are interacting with the businesses on WhatsApp for shopping or other purposes, their shopping activities will be shared with Facebook to personalise their experience on the related ads on Facebook and Instagram.

What is the Privacy Policy in EU?

• • Privacy policies of different countries put different types of restrictions on businesses. EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) provides much more control to the users on their personal information shared on the online platforms.
  • While in the EU also, WhatsApp privacy policy talks about sharing information with Facebook, but users have an additional right “Managing and Retaining Your Information”.
  • As per WhatsApp’s own policy for EU, Users there can access, rectify, port, and erase their information.
  • They can not only restrict or object to a certain type of information used by the platform but also can withdraw their consent to WhatsApp for processing of data.

How data is protected in India?   

In Puttaswamy v India (2017) case, privacy was established as a fundamental right. In other cases, MP Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. Uttar Pradesh (1962), as well, Privacy rights were upheld by SC.

As India has not implemented the Personal Data Protection Bill, there is no control over how user data will be processed by tech companies.

Click here to read about the challenges of Personal Data Protection Bill.

Apart from this IT Act 2000, and its amendment in 2008 deal with data protection to some extent.

• • Information Technology (Reasonable Security Practices and Sensitive Personal Data or Information) Rules, 2011 issued under the Information Technology Act, 2000, provides a measure of legal protection of personal information
  • Breach of data privacy is punishable under Section 72-A of the IT Act. The Act Penalises the offender for three year imprisonment or a maximum fine of Rs 5 lakh.
  • But this provision is only applicable to corporate entities not to individuals.
  • Rules are restricted to sensitive personal data — medical history, biometric information, and sexual history, among other things.

Way forward:

Justice BN Srikrishna committee report talks about three approaches to data protection and a draft data protection bill.

1. 1. The US model of laissez-faire approach: The USA does not have an overarching data protection framework.
   2. European Model of GDPR: Provides control of personal data in the hands of the data generators (Users)
   3. China’s model of protecting National interests: China created a national law in 2017 which contains top-level principles for handling personal data.

Though WhatsApp’s privacy policy is relaxed to some extent it is not perfect. This might be the first of many such privacy guidelines by the companies operating in India. The solution lies in the faster enactment of the Personal Data Protection Bill and the successful implementation of the Act. It is high time the government should enact the same.

News: WhatsApp has updated its terms of service and privacy policy on Wednesday for users in India.Users have till February 8,2021 to accept these in order to continue using the platform.

Facts:

Key Features of the Policy:

• End-to-End Encrypted: The messages on WhatsApp are end-to-end encrypted which means nobody can see your messages or share it with anyone.
• Information Sharing with Third Party Services: When users rely on third-party services or other Facebook Company Products that are integrated with our Services, those third-party services may receive information about what you or others share with them.
• Hardware Information: WhatsApp collects information from devices such as battery level, signal strength, app version, browser information, mobile network, connection information (including phone number, mobile operator or ISP) among others.
• Deleting the Account: If someone only deletes the WhatsApp app from their device without using the in-app delete my account feature, then that user’s information will remain stored with the platform.
• Data Storage: WhatsApp mentions that it uses Facebook’s global infrastructure and data centers including those in the United States to store user data. It also states that the data in some cases will be transferred to the United States or other parts where Facebook’s affiliate companies are based.
• Location: Even if a user does not use their location-relation features, Whatsapp collects IP addresses and other information like phone number area codes to estimate your general location (city, country).
• Businesses interacting with users: WhatsApp says that any businesses that users interact with may provide the platform with information as well. The content shared with a business on WhatsApp will be visible to several people in that business.
• Payment Services: WhatsApp says that if anyone uses their payments services they will process additional information about you, including payment account and transaction information.

Article Source

Context- The government of India has blocked 43 new Chinese app which are prejudicial to sovereignty and Integrity of India, defence of India, security of state and public order.

Why Indian Government ban these apps?

1. Defence and security concern– These apps are involved in activities against India’s sovereignty, integrity, defense, security and law and order.
2. Data Privacy Issue – The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) banned apps on reports of stealing and transmitting user’s data in an unauthorized manner to servers which have locations outside India.

• Strong move by the government that sends out a strong message that Indian data cannot be compromised.

Benefits- 

1. Opportunity for Indian– The recent ban on Chinese app is a good opportunity for Indian entrepreneurs to quickly rise to fill market gaps.-

• This opportunity has also opened up the job market under the segment which will eventually have an added boost to the Indian economy.

2. The ban may be useful for India to use its vast market for Internet services as leverage in its attempts to keep China in check at the border.

What are the concerns related to Chinese apps ban?

There are issues with the government gag against Chinese apps-

1. This can trigger an unconventional battle between the two countries in the larger technology realm.
2. Create negative image– This creates a big uncertainty for the foreign investors, and often results in reduces outflow of foreign investment.

What is the way forward?

• Need for A Data Protection Law: Data privacy and security remains to be major challenges emanating from the ongoing digital revolution. Thus, a data protection law is long overdue.
•  India must stick to a rules-based approach in regulating the Internet.

Issue of Digital/Social media regulations in India

In the backdrop of the increasing popularity of online platforms (OTT, Social Media Etc.) in India and world over in the recent times, many efforts are being made to regulate the content being posted on them.

The latest attempt in this row has been made by the Kerala Government. Kerala government has recently amended the Kerala Police Act by incorporating a new Section, 118 (A).

Provisions of the controversial Kerala law

• Any person who sends or creates any information that is offensive or is intended to offend or threaten another person, through any means of communication, is liable to face imprisonment of five years or a fine of Rs 10,000 or both.
• Make the offence as a cognisable(Police can arrest the person without warrant and investigate the person without the permission of the Court) and provides a punishment of three years.

• As per the government, Section 118(A) is meant to protect people, particularly women, transgenders and other vulnerable sections from social media abuse.

Relevant points from judgments:

• In Shreya Singhal Case Supreme court said that when a provision of law suffers from Vagueness and unclear about the terms and penal provisions used then that provision of law can be struck down by the judiciary (Supreme Court struck down Section 66Aof IT Act and also Section 118(d) of Kerala Police Act as a violation of Fundamental Rights enshrined under Article 19 (1))
• Kerala High court itself said
  

  “Existing laws which deal with the defamation and other allied offences are sufficient to address these kinds of issues. So, there is no need for separate legislation for offences like defamation, modesty of women and transgender etc.,”

• By making defamatory utterances cognisable and raising the prison term, the Kerala ordinance effectively amends the IPC and Cr.P.C., a move for which the Centre’s (President’s) assent is mandatory, as it is in conflict with central laws.

Regulations of Digital media

Recently, the government has brought digital/online media platforms, films release on OTT, and audio-visual programs, under the ambit of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting from the ambit of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.

New regulations added 2 new categories i.e.

1. Films and Audio Visual programmes made available by online content providers
2. News and Current Affairs on online platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram

In recent cases involving Sudarshan news, the government on the requirement of regulating the electronic media stated that regulating the digital media was more pressing.

At present, the News Broadcasters Association (NBA) represents the news channels, the Press Council of India regulates the print media, the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) monitors film, while the Advertising Standards Council of India regulates advertising.

Last month, a law was passed stating that digital news platforms could not have more than 26% foreign investment.

Need for regulating OTT platforms

• Video streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime have become key distributors for new movies and entertainment content during the COVID restrictions and have multiplied their subscribers in India in recent years. But they do not require any certification before any new releases.
• In contrast, new movies, before theatrical release, have to get through the certification process of the Central Board of Film Certification.

Need for regulating digital/social media platforms

• Ability of digital/social Media to Reach, Scale and size is huge compare to print and other media.
• While electronic media in India is regulated by the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act of 1995, there was no law or body to oversee digital content. Some people are taking an undue advantage which leads to too much voice and noise in social media.
• Recently, India has seen a surge in the number of fake news items in circulation, especially on WhatsApp and Face book.
• Absence of editorial control in digital/ social media leads to large scale user-generated content which is unregulated
• In 2018, fake information that was circulated on WhatsApp led to the lynching of five men in Maharashtra and there are many such instances.
• In this time, when India is in conflict with its neighbouring countries like China and Pakistan, there is a possibility of Foreign-funded digital platforms running to defame our country.
• There is also evidence of fake information influencing the process of election in the USA which undermines the root of democracy.

Issues in regulating the OTTs, digital and social media

• When it comes to regulating digital news content, new regulations may end up facilitating more governmental interference and censorship which impacts the Right to freedom of speech and expression (Article 19(1))
• It is expected that regulations might be instrumental in suppressing the freedom, enjoyed by digital media till now and might be targeted at a section that has been bold and forthright in speaking truth to power.
• Digital platforms were till now able to openly create the movies/videos on politically sensitive subjects, now they have to bow down to the political pressures.
• If the government is providing any legislation to regulate the social/digital media then the wider/free for all media houses and persons might face a number of allegations which leads to a huge inflow of cases to the judiciary which is already overburdened.
• The government turned down the self-regulatory proposal proposed by the 15 OTT platforms collectively under the Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI) in September this year.

Solutions:

• From Social/digital media side has to have a corporate responsibility
  • Misinformation has to tackle with information like the one did by YouTube in tackling false information.
  • They have to publish transparency reports from their side like Facebook
• From the Government Side
  • The government should pass an Act like that of the US to establish a self-regulatory system for media platforms and to hire content moderators to moderate the contents getting published on their platform
  • With recent reports posting a number of internet connections recently crossed the 750 million milestones in India, Digital Literacy Programmes has to be encouraged along with Digital India Mission
  • Model Code of Conduct implemented by Election Commission of India has been effective and efficient in curbing fake news and misinformation in social/digital media during elections, Government should appoint a study committee to explore the scalability of the same to other aspects as well.
• From Society
  • People should understand that freedom in social/digital media should complement with responsibilities envisaged in the Fundamental Duties.

Way forward:

Regulating social/digital media cannot be done from one side. All the stakeholders should have to contribute for the betterment of the platform as a whole is the key else India might follow the USA (Most Americans get their News from suspicious internet source which resulted in extreme polarization of citizen’s view).

Context: Social media helps the independent woman find and forge new solidarities.

The rise of social media is a result of loopholes in the traditional society. Discuss these loopholes.

• Globalisation: Globalisation and the resulting rush of ideas across the world d meant that we are no longer connected only to our physical tribes.
• This has also meant that we do not feel connected to our families and communities in the way that the previous generations were.
• Effect on women: This disconnect is far more distinct in women than in men; because men are more inclined to follow the traditional line of thought, especially since that school of thought heavily privileges them.
• Independent women who have a voice and demand to be heard, who refuse to bow down to the old world order and refuse to fit in with cultural norms of what a woman “ought” to be like.
• Traditional communities fall short: People need to be understood. Their worldview is so different from ours that we have spent much of our lives in isolation; an emotional isolation.
• Distance between generations: The isolation of the modern world has not been brought on by technology alone, but by the new ideas and by the distance between the ideas of the present generation and the previous one.
• Lack of support: Individuals who didn’t conform to normative ideas of social acceptance, traditional communities did not provide much support or emotional nourishment.
• There is no replacement for the feeling of being heard and understood that one gets in the presence of people who can empathise, and offer advice that enables you to live a life that you want.

How should be social media ideally used?

• Social media is a supplement: Social media becomes a hindrance and an isolator only when you begin to use it as a replacement for real-life family and friends, ignoring their physical presence when you are glued to your device even in the presence of people around you.
• Social media is not a substitute for physical networks.
• Seeking genuine and meaningful engagements: Instead of constantly being in battle mode over politics or religion or the newest debate, we need to attempt to genuinely connect with people at a personal level, at the level of ideas and emotions and empathy.
• Some of those online friendships could translate into offline friendships too.
• An additional tribe: There are various support groups popping up on social media now, for this purpose. To help people find their tribes, who would understand them and help them overcome the unending loneliness that is the curse of people whose ideas are vastly different from the physical communities they are a part of.

Way forward

• In a world that is increasingly becoming a mix of cultures, a mix of identities and a mix of selfhoods, we need a mix of multiple tribes to get through life.
• The notion of tribes and communities needs to evolve as well.

Social Media & hate speech

Impact of social media: Social media spreads messages way faster than other forms of mass media.

• Nearly 60,000 posts are shared on Facebook in just one second across the globe.
• Nearly 8,00,000 messages are sent in just one second across WhatsApp.
• Almost 70,000 searches are made on Google in just one second.

How social media aids hate speech?

• Unregulated Information sharing on platform– As exposed in a report by an international media organisation, Facebook is symptomatic of a larger infection of unregulated information dissemination through social media.
• Hate speech against Rohingya minorities– A Reuters investigation found that Facebook didn’t appropriately moderate hate speech and genocide calls against Myanmar’s Rohingya minorities.
• Prioritise business interest over common good– It is even accused of conducting a psychological experiment on its user’s emotions and more aspect of their personality.   For example, Recently Facebook was accused of conducting a psychological experiment on its user’s emotions and more aspect of their personality.
• Insensible approach– Google has been accused of delaying the removal of malicious content even after volunteer groups had reported it.

In News- Sudarshan TV case will have several implications for the regulation of free speech.

What is hate speech? 

The term hate speech is understood as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis their collective identity, be it race, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexuality.

Hate speech threatens two key doctrines of democracy-

• The guarantee of equal dignity to all
• The public good of inclusiveness.

Criteria to identify hate speech:

1. The extremity of the speech.
2. Incitement
3. Status of the author of the speech.
4. Status of victims of the speech.
5. Potentiality of the speech.
6. Context of the Speech.

Regulation of Hate speech in India

• Constitutional provisions: Article 19(2) of the Constitution gives all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression but subject to “reasonable restrictions” for preserving inter alia “public order, decency or morality”.
• Statutory provisions:   India prohibits hate speech by several sections such as Section 95 of CRPC Section 124A or Section 153A or Section 153B or Section 292 or Section 293 or Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code.

Committees on Hate Speech

1. K Viswanathan Committee recommendations.

• A committee headed by former Lok Sabha Secretary General T.K. Viswanathan submitted a report recommending stricter laws to curb online hate speech
• The panel was formed after Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, was scrapped by the Supreme Court in 2015.

Bezbaruah Committee

• The Bezbaruah Committee was constituted by the Centre in February 2014 in the wake of a series of racial attacks on persons belonging to the northeast
• Though the committee submitted its report in July 2014, the Home Ministry sent out letters to States for their opinion almost four years later, in February this year.

Laws against hate speech:

• Section 295A was also introduced to control series of communal violence.Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished.

Turmeric in India

Source: The Hindu

News: Sri Lankan police have seized 20,000 kg of turmeric smuggled by sea, reportedly from India amid a shortage persisting since Sri Lanka banned imports to support local farmers in the pandemic year.

Facts:

• Turmeric (Curcuma longa): It is a perennial herbaceous plant of the ginger family. The plant’s underground stems or rhizomes have been used as a spice, dye, medicine, and religious maker since antiquity.
• Significance: The spice’s color comes mainly from curcumin, a bright yellow phenolic compound that has been in the news for its ostensible potential to fight cancer. As a result, the demand for turmeric with high curcumin content has risen.
• Climate: It requires temperatures between 20 and 30 °C (68 and 86 °F) and a considerable amount of annual rainfall to thrive.
• Largest Producer: India is the largest producer and exporter of turmeric in the world. Turmeric occupies about 6% of the total area under spices and condiments in India.
• Largest Producer State: Telangana was the leading producer of turmeric in India during 2018. Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu were second and third in the ranking that year.

Source : Click here

News: Union Finance Minister released the Smuggling in India Report 2019-20.

Facts:

• Prepared by: The report has been compiled by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI).
• Aim: To analyse organised smuggling trends on Gold and Foreign Currency, Narcotic Drugs, Security, Environment and Commercial Frauds.

Key Takeaways:

• The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence detected 412 cases of smuggling resulting in the seizure worth ₹1,949 crore in 2019-20. It arrested 837 economic offenders and also unearthed 761 complex cases of Customs duty evasion amounting to ₹2,183 crore.

Additional Facts:

• Directorate of Revenue Intelligence(DRI): It is the apex anti-smuggling agency of India working under the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India

This article is based on the two Indian Express articles (links Indian Express, Indian Express) published today and in October, 2020 respectively.

Why in News

• US President Biden promises decriminalising the use of marijuana and also gave assurance to clearing out the past convictions related to it during his election campaign.
• In India also Recent case of wide spread drug usage among Bollywood actors and actresses created a wide debate on whether to legalise Marijuana or not?

 What is Cannabis?

• According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), cannabis is a generic term used to denote marijuana, hemp, weed etc and several other psychoactive preparations of the plant Cannabis sativa and other plants in Cannabis super family.
• In general Cannabis family has two major components

1. CBD (cannabidiol): It is a does not cause intoxication or psychoactive side effects and it is proven as effective chronic pain relief drug
2. Delta-9 Tetra Hydro Cannabinol (THC) is the major psychoactive constituent in cannabis

The WHO says that cannabis is by far the most widely cultivated, trafficked and abused illicit drug in the world.

How the Cannabis/Marijuana is regulated in India?

• Bhang, charas and ganja were regulated by the state excise departments and legally sold till 1985.
• In 1985 The Narcotic Drugs and Psychoactive Substances (NDPS) Act has been enacted central level commercial cultivation of cannabis by production, possession, sale/purchase, transportation, interstate import/export or any other forms is punishable. The Act has been amended three times – in 1988, 2001, and most recently in 2014.
• While CBD oil manufacturing is licenced under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 can be legally used and sold. Some Indian websites do sell. But to purchase it one needs a prescription and many even facilitate it.
• Similarly, Bhang, ganja and charas are enlisted in the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 for use in Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani

Important Provisions of NDPS Act:

• There are no restrictions on cultivation and procurement of cannabis for medical and scientific purposes.
• The legislature left seeds and leaves of the cannabis plant out of the ambit of the NDPS Act.
• The Act establishes Narcotics Control Bureau as the apex drug law enforcement agency and empowers them to oversee the implementation of of NDPS Act and also the other International conventions related to the it..
• For holding a small quantity, the prescribed punishment is rigorous imprisonment for up to six months, fine of Rs. 10,000 or both.
• For holding more than a small quantity but less than the commercial quantity, the prescribed punishment is rigorous imprisonment for up to 10 years, fine of Rs. 1 lakh, or both.
• For holding commercial quantity, the prescribed punishment is rigorous imprisonment for up to 10-20 years, fine of Rs. 1-2 lakh, or both.
• The Act covers three broad classes of substances:

1. narcotic drugs, that is, those covered under the 1961 UN single Convention on Narcotic drugs;
   • Hashish, resin or charas, ganja, any mixture of charas or ganja is prohibited.
   • Bhang or the cannabis leaf is excluded from the act, but regulated through state excise laws.
   • leaf; derivatives include cocaine and any preparation containing 0.1% of cocaine
   • Opium: Poppy based products, preparations with 0.2% morphine
2. psychotropic substances or those covered under the 1971 UN Convention on psychotropic substances as well as other psychoactive substances such as ketamine which are not yet classified under international conventions; and
3. “Controlled substances” that are used to manufacture narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, for example precursor chemicals such as acetic anhydride, ephedrine and pseudoephedrine.

• ‘Manufactured substances’ category includes drugs such as Amphetamines, methamphetamines, LSD’s

What are the significant aspects of the Act?

• The Act prescribes quantity-based punishment. The Act differentiates between small and commercial quantities of various drugs such as:
  • Heroin: 5 grams-250 grams
  • Cocaine: 2 grams-100 grams
  • Hashish or Charas: 100 grams-1 kg
  • Opium: 25 grams-2.5 kg
  • Ganja: 1kg-20 kg
• The Act Criminalize people who use drugs and provide treatment for their relief from National Fund for the Control of Drug Abuse.

Why Marijuana should be legalised?

• Historic significance of Marijuana in India:
  • In later Vedic literature Atharva Veda mentions Bhang plant as one of the 5 sacred plants and usage of Bhang since ancient times is common during the Hindu festivals of Holi and Mahashivaratri.
  • Indian Hemp Drugs Commission in 1894 recommended against complete ban and found the usage as ancient and religious. (For source)
  • In 1961, India opposed the inclusion of marijuana in the UN Convention on Narcotic Drugs, citing its role in social and religious customs
• WHO study concluded Marijuana is not as unhealthy compared to alcohol and tobacco products.
  • It implies that the harms associated with marijuana use were greatly overestimated and society should respond to its use through progressive public health policies rather than ban.
• Magnitude of substance use in India: This is a survey released by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment in 2019, it states that about 2.8 percent of Indians aged 10–75 years (3.1 crore people) were using cannabis in one form or other. (for source)
• Burden on Executive and Judiciary:
  • Narcotics Control Bureau investigate, interrogate and arrest people with small or miniscule amounts of marijuana and produce them in front of judiciary. It requires huge man power and state exchequer to control small or miniscule amounts of drug usage.
  • It leads to wide scope of corruption at lower level of executive which harass people even for petty crimes.
  • By legalising it India can release many young people landed in overcrowded jails whose only crime was using marijuana for fun and free up precious police time and go after the big drug mafias.
• International wave of legalization of cannabis, based on its medicinal properties and commercial utilities Ex. Uruguay became the first country to fully legalize marijuana in 2013. Then Canada followed the path.Now many states in USA legalised marijuana.

Why Marijuana should stay Illegal? (Financial Express)

• Short- and long-term side effects of Marijuana
  • Short term side effects may include a short-term memory loss, impaired motor skills, dry mouth and feelings of paranoia or anxiety.
  • In long term addiction, decreased mental ability and behavioural problems in children (when mothers used marijuana during pregnancy)
• Marijuana is a gateway drug
  • A private study found more than 40% who used marijuana also used other ‘Hard’ drugs.
• Against the Directive Principles of Article 47 which specifically calls for the prohibition of intoxicating drinks and drugs that are injurious to health
• Against International Conventions such as 1961 and 1971 UN conventions against Narcotic drugs and Psychotropic substances respectively and also International Opium Convention’ (1925).
• Difficulty in regulation: The fallouts of pharmaceutical product divergence into cattle market and drugs without prescription can continue in Marijuana too and put India’s younger generation at risk
• Not have completely proven medical records. For Ex., there is no evidence that cannabis is beneficial when used in diseases such as Crohn’s disease, sleep disorder, glaucoma, etc.

Way forward:

Instead of banning, India at present needs a progressive public health policy which control their use and reduce the harms by focusing on health education, age restrictions for buying, taxation policies, limiting the dose of the active ingredients and access to counselling for those who wish to stop is the need of the hour.

News: India Customs intercepted an 18-tonne shipment of red sandalwood destined for the United Arab Emirates, during “Operation Thunder 2020”.

Facts:

• Operation Thunder: It is coordinated by the INTERPOL and the World Customs Organization(WCO) involving law enforcement agencies in 103 countries against environmental crime.

Additional Facts:

• World Customs Organization (WCO): It is an independent intergovernmental body established in 1952 to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of Customs administrations. Headquarters: Brussels, Belgium.
• International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL): It is an intergovernmental organization established in 1923 with the aim to facilitate worldwide police cooperation and crime control in around 194 countries.Headquarters: Lyon, France.

What is the News?

TROPEX 21 is currently underway in Indian Ocean Region(IOR). It is the Indian Navy’s largest biennial Theatre Level Operational Readiness Exercise.

Exercise TROPEX:

• It is an inter-service military exercise. It involves the participation of the Indian Army, Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard.
• Aim:
  • To test the combat readiness of the Navy in a multi-dimensional scenario of the current geo-strategic environment.
  • To validate the Navy’s capabilities like offensive-defense capabilities, safeguarding the maritime domain, and promote stability and peace in the Indian Ocean Region.
• Conducted by: The exercise is being overseen by Naval Headquarters. Other participants include Eastern, Western and Southern Naval Command of the Indian Navy and Andaman and Nicobar Command (the only Tri-Service theatre command of the Indian Armed Forces located at Port Blair).
• Location: The exercise is being conducted in the Indian Ocean Region(IOR) and its adjunct waters.
• Theme of the exercise: ‘Combat Ready, Credible and Cohesive force.
• Phases under the exercise: Exercise TROPEX is being progressed over distinct phases that will also test the Navy’s transition from peacetime to hostilities.
  • In the first phase, the Indian Navy had conducted coastal defense Exercise ‘Sea Vigil’.
  • It was followed by a large-scale Tri-Service joint amphibious ,Exercise AMPHEX-21.

Source: The Hindu

What is the News?

The Supreme Court has ordered status quo on the dismantling of the Navy’s aircraft carrier, INS Viraat. The Navy decommissioned INS Viraat from service in 2017.

Facts:

 What is the issue?

• “The decision to dismantle INS Viraat was taken after holding due consultation with the Indian Navy,” said the Government in the Parliament in 2019.
• However, a firm (Envitech Marine Consultants Pvt. Ltd) has filed a petition in the Supreme Court. The firm seeks to convert INS Viraat into a maritime museum and a multi-functional adventure centre.
• So, the apex court has issued notice to the Centre and others. In that notice, the court sought their responses on a plea filed by the firm. Apart from that, the court ordered status quo on the dismantling of the INS Viraat.

INS Viraat:

• INS Viraat is a Centaur class aircraft carrier. It had served in the British Navy as HMS Hermes for 25 years (from 1959 to 1984). After refurbishment, it was commissioned into the Indian Navy in 1987.
• Motto: Its motto was (in Sanskrit) – “Jalamev Yasya Balmev Tasya” (One who controls the sea is all-powerful).
• Achievements:
  • It played an important role in Operation Jupiter in 1989 during the Sri Lankan Peacekeeping operation. In the operation, the ship sent Indian peacekeeping forces to Sri Lanka
  • The ship also performed blockading Pakistani ports, primarily the Karachi port as part of 1999’s Operation Vijay
  • It was also deployed in Operation Parakram during 2001-02 following the terror attack on the Indian Parliament.
  • The ship is nicknamed as the “Grand Old Lady“
  • The ship has also participated in various international joint exercises. Like Malabar (with US Navy), Varuna (with French Navy), Naseem-Al-Bahr (with Oman Navy) and has been an integral element of annual Theater Level Operational Exercise (TROPEX).
  • It is the longest-serving warship in the world. The ship also holds a Guinness Book of World Records for the same.
• Decommissioned in: The aircraft was decommissioned in March 2017.
• INS Viraat is the second aircraft carrier to be dismantled in India. In 2014, INS Vikrant was dismantled in Mumbai.

Source: The Hindu

Why in News?

Global Firepower has published the Global Firepower Index (GFP) /Military Strength Ranking 2021.

Facts:

• Global Firepower Index: It ranks each nation’s potential war-making capability across land, sea and air with conventional weapons.
• Factors: The index is calculated using fifty individual factors such as geography, logistical capability, manpower, land forces, airpower, natural resources, naval forces and financials.

Key Takeaways:

• The United States military was ranked the most powerful armed force in the world closely followed by Russia and China.
• India was ranked fourth in the Index with 542 combat aircraft, 17 submarines, 4,730 tanks, and 37 attack helicopters.
• Pakistan was ranked the tenth most powerful country in the Index. It has surpassed Israel, Indonesia, Iran, and Canada in terms of military power.

Source: The Hindu

Why in News? 

A large scale Joint Military exercise – Exercise Kavach will be conducted in the coming week. 

 Facts: 

• Exercise Kavach: It is a Joint Military exercise involving assets of the Indian Army, Indian Navy, Indian Air Force, and Indian Coast Guard. 
• Conducted under: The exercise will be conducted under the aegis of the Andaman and Nicobar Command, the only Joint Forces Command of the country. 
• Aim:  

• • To fine-tune joint war-fighting capabilities and Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for enhancing operational synergy. 
  • To execute multi-domain, high-intensity offensive and defensive maneuvers in the Andaman Sea and Bay of Bengal. 

• The exercise involves synergized application of maritime surveillance assets, coordinated air and maritime strikes, air defense, submarine and landing operations. 

Article Source

News: The second edition of the biennial pan-India coastal defence exercise ‘Sea Vigil-21’ has started.

Facts:

• Exercise Sea Vigil: The inaugural edition of the exercise was conducted in January 2019. The exercise is being undertaken along the entire 7516 km coastline and Exclusive Economic Zone of India.
• Coordinated by: It is coordinated by the Indian Navy and involves all the 13 coastal states and Union Territories along with other maritime stakeholders. It will also include fishing and coastal communities.
• Objective: To provide a realistic assessment of our strengths and weaknesses and thus will help in further strengthening maritime and national security.
• Significance: The exercise is a build-up towards the major Theatre-level exercise TROPEX [Theatre-level Readiness Operational Exercise] which the Indian Navy conducts every two years. SEA VIGIL and TROPEX together will cover the entire spectrum of maritime security challenges including the transition from peace to conflict.

Article Source

Source: The Indian Express

News: Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD) has released data on police organisations.

Facts:

• The data shows different aspects of policing in the country like woman police, police expenditure, constabulary ratio, transport facilities, communication facilities, representation of various castes and police training centres.

Key Takeaways:

• Police Population Ratio: According to report, Population Per Police Person is 511.81, that is one policeman for every 511.81 persons and 3.9 policemen for each VIP. Bihar had the worst ratio with one policeman for 867.57 persons.
• VIP Protection: As many as 66,043 policemen were deployed to protect 19,467 Ministers, Members of Parliament, judges, bureaucrats and other personalities in 2019 compared to 63,061 policemen for similar duty in 2018.
  • The highest number of persons who received police protection in 2019 were in West Bengal — 3,142 followed by Punjab (2,594), Bihar (2,347), Haryana (1,355) and Jharkhand (1,351).
• The Backward Classes, Dalits and Tribals constitute almost 67% of India’s population but their representation in police forces in the country is only at 51%.
• Scheduled Tribes form 8.6% of the population and have 12% representation in the police forces, placing them at a comparatively better position.
• Dalits represent 14% of all positions in police forces across the country. According to Census 2011, Dalits make up 16.6% of India’s population.
• Other Backward Classes(OBCs) fare the worst on the representation front as, despite their 41% share in the population, they constitute only 25% of the police forces.
• Women continue to be represented poorly.It is reflected in the women population per woman police ratio which stands at 3,026 nationally
  • However, their situation has improved considerably over the past five years. Since 2014, when the actual strength of women in police forces stood at around 1.11 lakh, their representation has almost doubled to 2.15 lakh.

Additional Facts:

• BPR&D: It was established in 1970 with the objective of modernisation of police forces. It functions under the aegis of Union Home Ministry
• BPR&D replaced Police Research and Advisory Council formed in 1966.
• Purpose: It is a nodal national police organisation to study, research and develop on subjects and issues related to policing.
• In 2008, the Government further decided to create the National Police Mission (NPM) under the administrative control of BPR&D
• Headquarters: New Delhi.

News:  Enforcement Directorate (ED) has been in news for the attachment of several properties of Dr. Farooq Abdullah, for his alleged involvement in money laundering.

About Enforcement Directorate (ED)

Directorate of Enforcement is a Multi-Disciplinary Organization mandated with the task of enforcing the provisions of two special fiscal laws – Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

The origin of this Directorate goes back to 1st May 1956, when an ‘Enforcement Unit’ was formed, in the Department of Economic Affairs, for handling Exchange Control Laws violations under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947.

How powers of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) evolved?

The powers of the Enforcement Directorate has been separated concerning the PMLA (2002) and FEMA (1999);

FERA (The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947) phase:

• The scope of power of ED remained limited since its existence from 1957 till 1973 when FERA (Foreign Exchange Regulations Act) was amended.
• FERA Empowered ED with the power to arrest for FERA violations. It allowed even Enforcement Officer to enter any business premises without a warrant and arrest anyone.
• Even an Assistant EO was empowered to search any vehicle or person without a warrant.
• But even then, the ED’s domain was largely limited to the corporate world. 

The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) phase

• Post-liberalisation FERA was repealed in January 2000, as it was seen as a coercive and obsolete law.
• FEMA (Foreign Exchange Management Act) replaced the FERA Under FEMA forex violations were amounted to civil offenses, compoundable after payment of a fine.
• ED lost its power to arrest people or take them into custody.

The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) Phase

• After the 9/11 attacks, the attention of the world turned to terror financing. After establishment of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), India was under pressure to deal with the issues of terror financing.
• Thus, Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) came into force in 2005. It re-empowered ED with the powers of criminal prosecution.
• Madhu Koda case became the first in the history of the agency to end in conviction.
• With the amendments in 2009 and 2013, the scope of PMLA was widened. It provided more teeth to the ED.
• It has become the only Act in India, under which a statement recorded before an investigating officer is admissible in a court as evidence.
• In 2017, SC struck down a provision under which an arrested accused could be granted bail only if the court was satisfied that the accused was not guilty.
• Between 2005 and 2017, before this ruling, only 2 to 3 persons could secure the bail, out of 120 persons accused by the ED.

What are the provisions related to the attachment of properties?  

• It is one of the most coercive and talked about provisions of the PMLA, which empowers ED to attach properties of the accused.
• Under PMLA, on the direction of the ED Director, money generated out of criminal activity (proceeds of crime) can be attached. If the wealth (money) is not available, ED can attach property equivalent to that value.
• The attachment provides for the property to remain out of bounds for the accused until the trial is complete.
• However, if the property is already in use (running businesses or residential houses), attachment doesn’t lead to immediate sealing of property, until the case reaches its logical conclusion.
• For Example, in 2018, the ED attached the Holiday Inn Hotel at Delhi’s IGI airport in connection with the Air India case. But the hotel continues to host guests as usual.
• Also in 2018, the ED had attached 50% of former Finance Minister P Chidambaram’s bungalow in New Delhi’s Jor Bagh. Which of being still enjoyed by Chidambaram and his family.

Difference between CBI and Enforcement Directorate:

Challenges and issues surrounding Enforcement Directorate:

• Firstly, Critics say that the government has been using the foreign funding law as a tool to silence its critics and Non-government groups that have raised concerns about the social costs of India’s rapid economic development.
  • For Ex: critics point out the recent ED raid on Amnesty India.
• Secondly, Conviction of cases: Under PMLA, the agency has conducted over 1,700 raids from March 2011 to January 2020 in connection with 1,569 specific investigations. In the same period though, the ED has managed to secure convictions in only a paltry 9 cases, most of which are relatively-speaking low profile cases.
• Thirdly, ED has insufficient manpower: Anonymous ED sources have through various stories complained about insufficient manpower, the difficulty in establishing evidence of a proper money trail, and poor litigation strategies. For Example, since the PMLA enacted investigation is pending in over 1,000 cases.
• Fourthly, regarding the Question of Independence and misuse: Critics of ED are calling it a tool of political intimidation because of ED’s administrative control of Ministry. For Example, the Panchkula land case created widespread criticisms over the Enforcement Directorate
• Fifthly, ED Lacks Jurisdiction if the convict is out of India. ED’s power to investigate or arrest the convicts at present is limited within the territory of India.
• Lastly, the Funding is inadequate: The powers and the responsibilities of ED requires adequate financing but the previous budgetary allocations are inadequate with respect to the functions of the ED.

Solutions to improve the performance of ED:

• Firstly, increasing the funding of the ED: Increasing the Budgetary allocation of ED will help them to improve the conduct of investigation and consequently the conviction rate.
• Secondly, increasing the Man power: By increasing the man power ED can become more efficient and reduce the pendency of cases. Thereby increasing the credibility of ED as a whole
• Thirdly, considering the autonomous status of ED: This will curb the question over Independence and improve the ED’s image as a reputed agency against economic offenses in our country.

Strengthening the Enforcement Directorate is the need of the hour that will not only strengthen the Indian Economy but also prevent India from various kinds of economic offenses happening in the country.

Source : Click here

News: Every year, India celebrates December 4 as Navy Day to commemorate Operation Trident.

Facts:

• Operation Trident: It was an offensive operation launched by the Indian Navy on Pakistan’s port city of Karachi during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.Operation Trident saw the first use of anti-ship missiles in combat in the region.

Additional Facts:

• Operation Desert Chase: It was the name of the Anti-espionage operation started by Military Intelligence(MI) in early 2019.It successfully culminated in 2020 with the arrest of two civil defence employees that they had been passing on sensitive information to Pakistan’s spy agency ISI.
• Operation Bandar: It was the code-name given by Indian Air Force(IAF) to the air strikes conducted by its Mirage-2000 fighters against the major Jaish-e-Mohammed training facility at Balakot in Pakistan in response to the Pulwama terror attack.

Context: The diverse experience of security forces has helped greatly in combating COVID-19.

Discuss the role of CAPFs during the pandemic?

• Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) carry out the task of overcoming the disaster, by not only carrying out rescue and relief operations, but also by moderating the pains and problems arising out of the disaster.
  • CAPFs comprise the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Border Security Force, Central Industrial Security Force, Sashastra Seema Bal, Assam Rifles and the ITBP.
• Role played by the CAPFs:
  • Setting up Quarantine centres: Even before covid-19, the Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) had already set up its 600-bed quarantine centre in Chawla on the outskirts of New Delhi.
  • Quarantine assistance: Out of the 324 Indian passengers in the first batch that arrived in New Delhi from China’s Wuhan, 103 were quarantined at the ITBP Centre.
  • Coordinated response: The Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare had roped in specialists from the Safdarjung Hospital to coordinate with ITBP officials.
    • Similarly, The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had directed the CAPFs to establish 5,400-bedded quarantine centres with 75 isolation wards, spread over 37 centres across the country.
  • Testing and Training: Immigration officials entrusted with conducting COVID-19 tests of the passengers arriving in New Delhi were trained by the NDRF.
    • The NDRF has trained over 30,000 personnel in disaster management across the country.
  • Role of Disaster Response Forces: The NDRF has been carrying out rescue and relief operations, and is also training the State Disaster Response Forces personnel in all States.
  • Relief work: A sum of ₹10 crores was sanctioned for the CRPF by the MHA to carry out relief work for those displaced in the aftermath of the lockdown.
  • Expertise and SOPs: The expertise acquired by ITBP personnel and the Standard Operating Procedure prepared by the ITBP came handy for the States and other police forces in establishing their own quarantine centres and COVID-19 hospitals.
    • For instance, a 10,000-bed quarantine centre was established in Chhatarpur in New Delhi by the ITBP, where over 10,000 patients have been treated till now, according to ITBP spokesperson.

What steps can be taken?

• There is a need to expand the strength of trained personnel. Personnel can be deployed at quarantines centres after short term courses.
• A proposal mooted by NITI Aayog last year, to conduct a bridge course for dentists to solidify them eligible for the MBBS degree, could be revived, and such doctors could be on stand-by to help in such emergency crises.

It is these CAPF personnel who give an impression of existence of government administration even in the remotest corners of the country. Their versatile experience can be utilised to the nation’s advantage.

What is the News?
To provide Cyber security training to staffs Ministry of Railways has joined hands with the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC).  The training will educate its officials on Internet ethics, cyber hygiene and best practices in the use of IT equipment, including mobile phones.

This is a part of C-DAC’s National Cyber Security Strategy. The training was decided based on the recent cyberattacks across the railway network during the ongoing pandemic.

Use of IT infrastructure in Railways:

• The Indian Railways uses IT infrastructure for the Passenger Reservation System (PRS).  PRS is the nationwide online passenger reservation and ticketing system for railways.
• E-payment is also provided as part of the Freight Operations Information System(FOIS).

 Why cyber security training is needed?

• The PRS includes passengers identities, proof of address, passenger mobile number and net banking/card payment details. So any cyber breach will endanger the sensitive data of the passengers.
• Indian Railways has seen a number of cyber breaches in various IT applications of railways. For example, illegal applications were used to book tickets, bypassing the railway firewall.
• These incidents occurred due to improper handling of the IT assets by the personnel.
• Further, these breaches increased after the lockdown due to an increase in electronic modes of communication in official working. So cyber security training is much needed.
• Hence, it was necessary that all railway officials took responsibility and follow adequate procedures when using IT infrastructure. This is important for ensuring confidentiality, privacy in dealing with official information.

Source: The Hindu

Synopsis: Deepfakes are becoming a huge threat. This AI-based technology has been used to incite violence and disrepute people. Recently, it was used allegedly used to incite violence in the US.

What are Deepfakes?

• Deepfakes are modified images, text, audio, and video or synthetic media, created with the help of Artificial Intelligence.
• It generates a fake version from an original or real audio-visual content by superimposing new audio or image on an existing media file.

• • For example; with the use of AI, the face of a person in an original video can be replaced with the face of another person (Morphing). Now the modified face will mimic the head movements, vocal patterns, and facial expressions of the original one.

• Media is manipulated with such sharpness that it becomes almost impossible to identify the difference between fake and real media. It can only be identified by using AI tools.

Read – Capitol building coup attempt in US: Reasons behind launch and failures – ForumIAS Blog

Threats of Deep Fakes

• Deep fakes can be used to disrupt the democratic processes like elections in any country.

• • It is believed that Capitol Hill violence was incited by using deep fake media which caused misinformation and disinformation.

• Deep Fakes are used to stain the reputations of individuals and spread propaganda against them.
  • According to a deep fake tracking research organization, in the month of October alone, over 100,000 fake nude images of women were circulating online.
  • Real images for that purpose were acquired through social media accounts.
• The existence of deep fakes causes that much distrust among the public that any true evidence of a crime can easily be dismissed as fake.
• These technologies can be used by terrorist organizations and insurgents to further their agenda of destabilizing state governments. They can spread false information about institutions, public policy, and politicians for this purpose.
• The existing legal framework of many countries including India does not criminalize deep fakes.

Regulations of Deep fakes 

In US: As per US law, Social Media Companies cannot be held responsible for the posts on their platforms.

In India: Some provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Information Technology Act, 2000 criminalize a few related cybercrimes. But there is no specific law as of now to deal with deep fakes.

Issues in India’s legal system 

• Sections 66E, 67, 67A, and 72 of the IT act deal with the violation of privacy and publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form.

• • But these provisions can also result in penal consequences for the victim, for voluntarily producing such material.

• The Information Technology Intermediary Guidelines (Amendment) Rules, 2018 are insufficient to tackle content manipulation on digital platforms.

• • Guidelines require that intermediate companies take necessary steps for the removal of illegal content.

• During the 2019 general election of India, the election commission gave out instructions on the use of social media for election campaigns. Social media companies also agreed to take action to prevent any violations.

• • However, it has been reported that social media platforms like WhatsApp were used for spreading misinformation and propaganda during the election.

What are the steps to be taken?

Existing laws are not enough to protect individuals against deep fakes. Only AI-generated tools can be effective in detection.

• AI-based detection tools with the capability to detect deep fakes must be invented as soon as possible.
• In 2020, the University of Washington and Microsoft arranged a workshop with experts to discuss how to avoid deep fake technology from harmfully affecting the 2020 U.S. presidential election. The workshop concluded with the following suggestions:

• • Deep Fakes must be included under hateful manipulated media, propaganda, and disinformation campaigns.
  • Journalists should be provided with tools to examine the authenticity of images, video, and audio recordings. For that, they require proper training and resources.
  • Policymakers need to understand how deep fakes can threaten polity, society, economy, culture, individuals, and communities.

Way forward

The best way to deal with this menace is AI-backed technological tools to detect and prevent deep fakes. These tools must be invented by the countries in cooperation as soon as possible. If steps are not taken immediately, these technologies are even capable of invoking wars among countries, in this information age.

Synopsis– Present data-based technological development and Personal Data Protection Bill 2019 presents a unique challenge to the privacy of individuals.  

Introduction Personal Data Protection Bill 2019   –

By Puttaswamy v India (2017) case, privacy was established as a fundamental right. In other cases, MP Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. Uttar Pradesh (1962), as well, Privacy rights were upheld by SC.  

However, the development of global technology and implementation of the Aadhaar biometric programme in India have diluted the effect of these rulings. Now there is an urgent need to take a new look at the legal position of privacy in India. 

As depicted by Aadhaar based technology and global social media platforms, data has become a new oil i.e., it has become a tool for economic and political gain. It created a stream of data protection legislations, globally. India is also trying to join the league by Personal Data Protection Bill 2019 (DPB).   

In India, the Personal Data Protection Bill 2019 (DPB) is currently under consideration by a parliamentary committee. There are various issues in this bill that go against the privacy rights of individuals. 

Commercial and Political consequences of the Data Protection Bill (DPB): 

Data Collection related issues  

• First- Bill will negatively impact the emerging technologies market of India dealing in creation, use, and sale of data that is valued at $1 trillion by 2025.  
• Second- The bill requires digital firms who want to operate in India to obtain permission from users before collecting their data.  
• Third– Bill also declares that users who provide data are, in effect, the owners of their own data and may control its usage or request firms to delete it.  
  • • European internet-users are able to exercise a “right to be forgotten” and have evidence of their online presence removed. 
• Fourth– The bill allows the government to use “critical” or “sensitive” personal data, related to information such as religion, to protect national interest. 

• Fifth– Open-ended access to government could lead to misuse of data. Mr. B N Srikrishna, the chairmen of the drafting committee of the original bill, warned that government-access exemptions risk creating an “Orwellian state”.

Issues related to Establishment of Data Protection Authority (DPA)  

• Bill aims to establish a Data Protection Authority (DPA), which will be charged with managing data collected by the Aadhaar programme. 
  • • Authority will consist of chairperson and six committee members,  
    • Members will be appointed by the central government on the recommendation of a selection committee.
    • Members will be selected from senior civil servants, including the Cabinet Secretary. 
• The government’s power to appoint and remove members at its discretion provides it an ability to influence the independence of agency.
• Unlike similar institutions, such as the Reserve Bank of India or the Securities and Exchange Board, the DPA will not have an independent expert or member of the judiciary on its governing committee.
• The UIDAI, for its part, has a chairperson appointed by the central government and reporting directly to the Centre.

Issues related to government use of data for surveillance

There are instances that suggest, India is acquiring some features of a surveillance state. 

• As stated by the Union Home minister recently, police used facial recognition technology to identify people after the anti-CAA protests and the Delhi riots. 
• There is a high possibility that police was matching the video offstage with the database of Election Commission and e-Vahan, a pan-India database of vehicle registration.

Issue related to safety of data 

There are instances of controversy where government has shown casual approach towards data safety and privacy of its citizens:  

• First, Safety concerns were raised during aadhaar data collection, which stores biometric data in the form of iris and fingerprints which is a violation of right to privacy.  
• Second instance was of Aarogya Setu contact-tracing app which was allegedly not able to protect the data provided by citizens.  

Way Forward 

• The Data Protection Bill is a unique opportunity for India, a country with some 740 million internet users.  It would be a standard setter for privacy of individuals. 
• Inclusive debate needs to take place in the Joint Parliament Committee and then in Parliament to examine the Data Protection Bill and promote transparency.

News: The ‘Solar Winds hack’, a cyberattack discovered in the United States, has emerged as one of the biggest ever targeted against the US government.In fact, it is likely a global cyberattack.

Facts:

• SolarWinds Hack also called the Supply Chain attack is a cyberattack discovered in the United States.
• Instead of directly attacking the federal government or a private organisation’s network, the hackers target a third-party vendor which supplies software to them.

Additional Facts:

• Cyberattack: It is a malicious and deliberate attempt by an individual or organization to breach the information system of another individual or organization.
• Common types of cyber attacks
  • Malware: Malware (malicious software) refers to any kind of software that is designed to cause damage to a single computer, server or computer network.
  • Phishing: It is the practice of sending fraudulent communications that appear to come from a reputable source, usually through email.The goal is to steal sensitive data like credit card and login information or to install malware on the victim’s machine.
  • Zero-day exploit: A zero-day exploit hits after a network vulnerability is announced but before a patch or solution is implemented. Attackers target the disclosed vulnerability during this window of time.
  • Man-in-the-middle (MitM) attacks also known as eavesdropping attacks occur when attackers insert themselves into a two-party transaction. Once the attackers interrupt the traffic, they can filter and steal data.

News: Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology (MeitY) has released the Draft Data Centre Policy,2020.

Facts:

• Aim: Making India a Global Data Centre hub, promote investment in the sector, propel digital economy growth, enable provisioning of trusted hosting infrastructure to fulfil the growing demand of the country and facilitate state of the art service delivery to citizens.

Key Features of the Policy:

• Infrastructure Status: Provide Infrastructure Status to the Data Centre Sector at par with other sectors like Railways, Roadways and Power.
• Single Window Clearance: A single-window, time-bound clearance system for all the approvals required to set up a data-centre park.
• Incentivization Scheme: Formulation of Data Centre Incentivization Scheme (DCIS) which will specify the intended beneficiaries, applicability criteria and fiscal and non-fiscal incentives for the sector.
• Essential Service: Data centres will be declared as an Essential Service under “The Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1968 (ESMA)” which means that there would be a continuity of services even during times of calamities or crisis.
• Inter-Ministerial Empowered Committee(IMEC): It would be set up under the Chairmanship of Secretary, MeitY with participation from various Central Ministries and State Governments to facilitate the implementation of various measures in the sector.
• Data Centre Industry Council(DCIC): An independent Data Centre Industry Council(DCIC) is proposed to be set up which would act as an interface between the sector and the Government.
• Training: Collaboration with the Ministry of Skills Development and Entrepreneurship(MSDE) and leading academic institutes to impart training to workforce on Data Centre, Digital and Cloud technologies, and facilitate sector linkages for such trained workforce.

Additional Facts:

• Data Centre: It is a dedicated secure space within a building where computing and networking equipment is concentrated for the purpose of collecting, storing, processing, distributing or allowing access to large amounts of data.
• Data Centre Parks: These are specialized secure Data Zone located with the most conducive non-IT and IT infrastructure and regulatory environment for housing mix of small scale / large scale / clusters of Data Centres to serve the high needs of compute, storage, networking and provision of a wide range of data-related services.

Synopsis: Bombay HC granted bail in UAPA case on health grounds. It will set a new example of upholding the individual’s right in anti-terrorism cases.

Background

• Bombay High Court granted bail to poet Varavara Rao on medical grounds. He was jailed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for the Bhima Koregaon case.
• Recently, Varavara Rao was admitted to the Nanavati Hospital after his condition deteriorated due to some ailments.
• NIA was of the opinion that there is a statutory bar under Section 43D (5) of the UAPA on providing bail if the accusation against a person is prima facie true. Also when the accused has access to treatment in a government hospital. Bail on the health grounds will attract a flood of such petitions.
• However, HC ruled that even provisions of anti-terrorism law cannot curb the right to life under Article 21.

Grounds for Bail in Anti-terrorism cases

1. Supreme Court ruling in 2019 made it nearly impossible to grant bails in the cases of UAPA. It is possible only in the case when an accused could prove charges against him to be prima facie untrue.
2. However, recently, SC held that prolonged imprisonment without any near possibility of completion of the trial is a ground for bail.
3. In this case, too, HC observed the same situations before granting the bail. It was observed that there was no possibility of early completion of the trial. Moreover, charges are yet to be framed.

This HC judgment will set a new precedent of valuing human Rights over National Security Laws.

Judiciary

Recently the Delhi High Court granted bail to a climate activist in the Greta Thunberg toolkit case. The court dismissed the criminal conspiracy charges filed by Delhi police due to a lack of evidence. The law on criminal conspiracy was enacted to control the nationalist movement in India before independence. However, even after more than 7 decades of independence, this law is in use frequently.

What is the recent case on the law of criminal conspiracy?

Greta Thunberg toolkit was related to the violence committed during the farmer’s protest on January 26. The Delhi Police arrested a Climate Activist in India related to the tool kit case. The police claimed that the climate activist was the editor of “toolkit Google doc” and a “key conspirator” in the toolkit formulation and distribution.

Delhi Police accused the activist under section 120B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 124A of IPC(sedition). The police claimed the Activist and others were the local collaborators in the conspiracy for inciting disaffection and accelerating the violence.

But the Delhi high court rejected the Delhi Police accusations and granted her bail. The court mentioned that the police lacked evidence to prove her conspiracy charges. The Court further held that interaction with people of doubtful credentials is not an offence. Apart from that the court also held that the authorities can not consider inferences (prior assumptions) as evidence.

What is criminal conspiracy law in India?

In India, criminal conspiracy falls under Section 120 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

1. Section 120A of IPC defines criminal conspiracy.
2. Section 120B of IPC prescribes punishments for criminal conspiracy.

Definition:

It is defined as an “agreement” between two or more persons to commit a criminal offence.

For an offence to be classified as a criminal offence, certain conditions have to be satisfied. They are,

• There must be two or more persons indulged in a criminal offence
• Even if the actual offence has not been committed, an agreement alone is necessary and sufficient to punish the person
• The agreement has to be either related to committing an illegal act or a legal act committed through illegal means.
• If such an agreement is reached then such agreement will be considered a criminal conspiracy.
• But, merely discussing or having knowledge or having any ill intentions of committing a crime would not constitute criminal conspiracy.
• It is not necessary for all the conspirators to know each other for committing an offence.
• If the conspiracy charge got proved in court, then all the accused will be held liable for conspiracy. Apart from that, the accused persons shall also be punished separately for the individual offences committed by them.

For example, if a group of friends (A, B, C, D) are speaking about robbing a bank to get rich, then it is not a criminal conspiracy as they are merely discussing it. But if they agree to rob a bank, and discuss their responsibilities in robbing a bank. Such as Person A and B will rob the money, Person C will threaten the people in Bank and Person D will watch the gate then this will be a criminal conspiracy under the law.

Punishment:

Section 120B of IPC prescribes punishments for criminal conspiracy. Section 120B divides criminal conspiracies into two categories.

1. Criminal conspiracy to commit serious offences: For serious offences the conspirator will get a punishment similar to abetting (encourage or assist (someone) to do the serious offence) the offence.
   Serious offences here include any offences (if committed by the conspirator) that will attract death penalty, life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment (two years or more).
2. Criminal conspiracy to commit other offences: In this case, the punishment under criminal conspiracy shall not exceed six months of imprisonment or fine or both.

How criminal conspiracy law evolved in India?

Initially, during Colonial rule, criminal conspiracy was considered as a civil offence. But the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1913  changed the conspiracy as a criminal offence. This was used by the British to handle the Revolutionary leaders of India. The famous few cases were,

• Kakori Conspiracy Case (1925): The case was framed against Hindustan Republican Association for train robbery. The revolutionaries were arrested and tried in court.
• Lahore Conspiracy Case (1931): This case was framed for the murder of  JP Saunders, a British police officer. The case was filed against Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev, Rajguru and Chandrashekhar Azad. Except Azad all were caught and punished with death sentence. Azad got killed in an encounter later on.

What are the observations made by the court on the criminal conspiracy law?

1. Bimbdhar Pradhan vs. state of Orissa case 1956: The court held that based on sufficient evidence the court can even convict one person alone for criminal conspiracy.
2. State of H.P vs Krishan lal case: The Court held that the criminal conspiracy consists of a meeting of minds for agreeing to do on offence. The court defined Meeting of Minds as the persons involved in the conspiracy were well aware of the objective and intention behind the conspiracy
3. Param Hans Yadav Vs State Of Bihar case 1987: The court observed the difficulties in producing evidence for the charges of conspiracy. Establishing the link between the different chain of events was the only way to prove the conspiracy.
4. State of Tamil Nadu vs Nalini case: If a person has knowledge about the conspiracy, then it would not make him a conspirator. The court also held that providing shelter to the main accused is not considered as evidence of the conspiracy. A meeting of minds will be required to prove the conspiracy.
   For example, If 3 member planned a robbery in a bank and planning to escape by a car belonging to a person X. If X doesn’t know anything about the robbery, then the X cannot be considered to be a conspirator.

Why do we need to reform the Criminal Conspiracy law?

1. Law commission report: The law commission in one of its report mentions the needs to reform the criminal conspiracy laws. They were,
   • Section 120A of IPC provides wide-sweeping powers to the government.
   • There is no need for criminal conspiracy legislation especially to punish for conspiracies related to petty offences.
2. The general rule of crime is not fulfilled by criminal conspiracy law. As a general rule, to constitute a crime, both mens rea (guilty mind or intention)) and actus rea (the guilty act) must be involved. But Section 120 A of IPC punishes merely the guilty mind as a criminal offence.
3. Section 120-A does not define what are illegal ways to achieve lawful actions. So this provision is getting misused by the government to silence the critics.

Suggestions:

1. Law enforcement authorities need education on these laws to prevent the problem of misuse. The enforcement authorities might be trained regarding the application and non-application cases of criminal conspiracy cases.
2. The government has to define illegal ways to do legal actions. This will ensure clarity in the definition and check the misuse to a great extent.
3. Further, the government should implement the suggestion of the Law Commission by removing petty crimes from Section 120A of IPC.
4.  The government can consider rolling back the conspiracy to a civil offence. As it was the practice prior to the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1913. 

The recent case of climate activist is one of the many instances where the law on criminal conspiracy is getting misused. It is the high time for the government to encourage constructive criticisms and amend Section 120A. This will ensure the midline of encouraging healthy debates and punishing the wrong ones in one go.

Synopsis – Delhi court grants bail to Disha Ravi in its ruling in the tool kit case. It termed evidence produced by Delhi police as inappropriate.

Introduction-

• Delhi Court granted bail to climate activist Disha Ravi, arrested in the Greta Thunberg ‘toolkit’ case.
• Delhi Police arrested her on charges of sedition and criminal conspiracy in the Greta toolkit case.

Key takeaways from Court’s ruling-

• The Delhi court dismissed the claims as Delhi police failed to show any evidence
• On criminal conspiracy, the Court noted that mere assumption is not sufficient. It should be backed by evidence.
  • The judge stated that only interaction with people of doubtful credentials is not an offence.
• On sedition, the court cited Kedar Nath case (1962) that actual violence or incitement to violence should be associated with words.
• Moreover, the Court negated the state’s “global conspiracy” claims and stated that the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression “includes the right to seek a global audience”. Also, “there are no geographical barriers on communication” as long as it’s “under the four corners of the law.”

What is the Toolkit case?

Toolkit- A document created to explain any issue which provides information on what one needs to do to address the issue.

• The toolkit includes information about petitions, details about protests, and mass movements.
• Also provide a roadmap of how to take forward the protest and what can be done, when and how.

Disha Ravi Toolkit case-

• Delhi police reported that Ravi was the editor of a Google doc (called a toolkit) related to farmer’s protest.
• Police alleged that she started a WhatsApp Group to make the Toolkit doc in collaboration with a pro-Khalistani organization to spread disaffection against the Indian state.
• She was charged with Section 120B [Criminal conspiracy], along with Sections 124A (sedition) and Section 153A (Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) of IPC.

Self-regulatory toolkit by OTTs for implementation of Self Regulation Codes, 2020

Synopsis: Recent charges of sedition against individuals have brought back focus to seditions law. The oppression of dissenters is more dangerous for society. It creates more division in society compared to seditious acts. 

Introduction 

In Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962), the Supreme Court defended the constitutional validity of sedition. It noted that it is a reasonable restriction on free speech as provided in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.

The court also made clear that an individual has the right to speak or write anything about the government. However, it should not result in inciting people to violence against the government. 

Why does the sedition law need a relook?

In the Aseem Trivedi case, the Bombay High Court issued guidelines which the police must follow in a sedition case. These guidelines include an objective evaluation of the seditious material. By that police must form an opinion on whether the words and actions caused disaffection and disloyalty to the government. However, the law needs a relook due to the following reasons: 

• Firstly, despite repetitive warnings to law enforcement agencies by courts, there is poor implementation of guidelines given by the court. 
• Secondly, the recent reports show that the number of cases of sedition under Section 124A increased by 160%. Whereas the rate of conviction dropped to 3.3% in 2019 from 33.3% in 2016. 
• Thirdly, in this social media age, information travels at a lightning speed, and Cyberbullies can easily trend wrong information. Any kind of misinformation can lead to public disorder. 
• Fourthly, the U.K. abolished the offence of sedition in 2010. Whereas, India is still retaining the law given by the British Empire.
• Fifthly, various commissions have questioned the efficacy of such a law in the statute book. For instance, the Law Commission of India questioned how far it is justified to retain Section 124A. 

What steps can be taken to deal with sedition?

Sedition laws will not be repealed anytime sooner. In the meantime, courts can adopt an approach that can balance the issue of National security and the right to speech.  

• At present sedition is decided based on a content-based test that reviews only the text i.e. even if a written material not caused any social unrest, it can be held a seditious text based on the words used.  
• Courts must adopt an effect-based test that examines the effects of the seditious text. It means whether the text resulted in violence or not.
• The principles of justice, liberty, equality and fraternity exists in the Preamble to our Constitution. Courts must uphold these principles. 

It is not the alleged seditious acts that are creating fragments in our society; it is in fact the persecution of individuals and labelling them that are really creating cracks in our socio-political ecosystem. 

Criminalisation of government criticisms: Laws and issues

Synopsis: The government warned Twitter over its reluctance in following the executive order for blocking of information. However, the focus should be on balancing free speech and national security.

Background

• The government used its power under Section 69A of the information and technology act to block information on the Micro-blogging site.
• This section allows the government to block any information by issuing orders to a digital intermediary. National security, public order, sovereignty and integrity of India, etc, are some grounds for blocking.
• The apparent reason behind such an order was the use of a controversial hashtag that disturbed public order.
• The order was only partially followed by Twitter.

Government’s Stance:

• Social media platforms should respect the law of the land. Partial compliance is simply a violation.
• Further, there should be consistency in behaviour as Twitter supported police action in Washington’s Capitol Hill incident. But similar support was not seen in the 26th January violent protests at Red fort, Delhi.
  • It removed problematic hashtags as the same was causing the spread of hatred. 
  • It viewed the blocking of journalists’ and activists’ accounts as a threat to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 of the constitution. Therefore, accounts were reactivated after some time. 

Way Forward:

• Both the government and Twitter are determined not to escalate the issue. The government has only issued a warning while Twitter has refrained from approaching the court.
• There is a need to re-examine the extent of the wide ambit of censorship powers under Section 69A. An opportunity was missed by the court in Shreya Singhal versus Union of India, in which the extent of the section was not rationalized.

In the world’s largest democracy, the culture of secrecy and arbitrariness shouldn’t be allowed to suppress freedom of speech and expression. The government must view freedom of speech as a facilitator to the security of the state and not an impediment.

What is the news?

Delhi Court has observed that the Sedition laws cannot be invoked to quiet the disquiet (criminalising the critics). The court also held that the government cannot act like restricting criminals while using sedition under IPC.

This observation was made by the court while granting bail to two persons arrested by Delhi police for allegedly committing sedition and spread rumours by posting fake videos on Facebook during ongoing farmers’ protests.

What is Sedition?

• The concept of sedition was introduced under Section 124A under the Indian Penal Code in 1870. It was drafted by Thomas Macaulay.
• The section was introduced initially to deal with increasing Wahabi activities between 1863 and 1870. These activities posed a challenge to the colonial government.
• However, in the 19th and early 20th Centuries, the law was mainly used against Indian political leaders seeking independence from British rule.

Punishment under Sedition:

• Sedition is a cognisable (No need Court warrant to arrest the person), non-compoundable, and non-bailable offence. The sentence can be between three years to imprisonment for life for sedition.
• A person charged under this law can’t apply for a government job. They have to live without their passport. Apart from that, they must present themselves in the court as and when required.

Sedition Trials during the Freedom Movement:

Some of the most famous sedition trials of the late 19th and early 20th century involved Indian nationalist leaders.

• The first among them was the trial of Jogendra Chandra Bose in 1891. He was the editor of the newspaper, Bangobasi. He wrote an article criticizing the Age of Consent Bill for posing a threat to the religion and for its coercive relationship with Indians.
• Further, Bal Gangadhar Tilak was prosecuted for his writings in Kesari in 1897.
• The other well-known case was the sedition trial of Mahatma Gandhi in 1922. Gandhi had called Sedition “the prince among the political sections of the IPC designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen”.

Judiciary on Sedition:

1.  In 1951, the Punjab High Court had ruled Section 124A to be unconstitutional. A similar ruling was passed in 1959 by the Allahabad High Court, which also concluded that it struck at the very root of free speech.
2. Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar,1962:
   • The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of Section 124-A (sedition) on the basis that this power was required by the state to protect itself.
   • However, it said that every citizen has a right to say or write about the government by way of criticism or comment. A citizen can criticize the government to the extent, it does not incite people into violence.
3. P.Alavi vs State of Kerala,1982:
   The Supreme Court held that sloganeering, criticising of Parliament or Judicial setup does not amount to sedition.
4. Balwant Singh v State of Punjab,1995:
   • The Supreme Court acquitted persons from charges of sedition for shouting slogans such as “Khalistan Zindabad”.
   • The court held that mere raising of slogans by two individuals alone cannot be sid as sedition. Further, it is also not considered as an attempt aimed to excite hatred or disaffection against the government.

Read more about national security laws in India

Source: The Hindu

Synopsis: Twitter has acted with reason after defying the Indian government’s legal orders. It didn’t implement the order fully and this action is desirable despite the criticism.

Introduction 

Twitter did not act in accordance with the Indian government’s orders under Section 69A of the IT Act. It was required to block hundreds of accounts under the order. 

However, Twitter has said that the list had accounts of journalists, activists, and politicians. Twitter believes that blocking these accounts would not be fair to Indian law and the platform’s contract objectives.

• This defiance has not gone down well with the government. Independent verifications revealed that many accounts did not post messages suggesting a genocide plan but supported farmers’ protest. 

What were the criticisms against Twitter?

Twitter witnessed criticism on multiple grounds such as: 

1. Firstly, Twitter’s refusal shows a lack of respect for Indian law because it is bound by legal orders of the government under the Act.
2. Secondly, Twitter is a private company, and it cannot decide what is proportionate or lawful. Twitter can challenge the order in a court, but cannot choose to comply partially.
3. Thirdly, Twitter’s decision indicates that it is denying parity to India with the U.S. The platform blocked Donald Trump’s account but refusing to block users in India.
4. Fourthly, its defiance indicates the increasing power and liberty of Big Tech. It requires a clear and plain zero-tolerance response.

Why Twitter’s actions are justified?

1. The tension between government and social media platforms is healthy and constructive. It keeps a balance, which was not possible if both were on the same side.
2. Following government orders blindly will seriously impact twitter’s audience’s fundamental rights. Twitter has also a responsibility to ensure people’s right to free and informed speech.
3. Big Techs has often sided with the government hurting its users’ rights. For instance, The Wall Street Journal reported that Facebook India failed to act on provocative posts of a member of the ruling party. It is good that Big techs are thinking about users. 
4. Twitter didn’t ban Trump’s account all of a sudden despite the repeated promotion of lies. His account was spreading misinformation during the Capitol Hill riot.  Before suspending his account, Twitter tried to flag his content and limit its reach. A permanent ban was the last step. Demanding a direct ban is against this process of twitter. 
5. The current incident is among the rare instances that Twitter has given equivalence to its Indian audience with that of its U.S.’s. Twitter chose to take an independent view of the matter and not blindly complied with the wishes of the government.

Way forward

• The attempt to extend similar safeguards to Indian users as the US users enjoy is a welcome step. That would also be consistent with the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights endorsed by the UNHRC.

Synopsis: A 22-year-old climate activist got arrested for misusing a toolkit. Such instances raise a question of alleged misuse of power by the government officials.   

Read More – Toolkit conspiracy case and its imapct on India- Explained Pointwise – ForumIAS Blog 

Background: 

• The Delhi Police has already registered multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) post the 26th January farmer protest in Delhi. 
• They have now arrested Disha Ravi, a climate activist from Bengaluru for editing a toolkit published on 3rd February by climate activist Greta Thunberg. It was used by social media users to protest against the farm laws.   

What is a tool kit? 

• It is simply a document containing a set of directives for social media campaigners. 
• It includes the hashtags to be used, persons to be targeted, duration of campaign and other things for a systematic and synchronized online campaign.  

Reason for Arrest: 

• The allegation is that the toolkit was made by Pro – Khalistani separatists. Thus,  editing it amounted to sedition and incitement to riots. 
• The government believes that activist is part of a Global conspiracy to incite violence in the country by secessionists based in Punjab. 

Issues with Arrest: 

• First, the Delhi Police didn’t’ seek permission from the state Police. By that, it disobeyed interstate arrest guidelines formulated by the Delhi High Court. Further the accused was not allowed to be properly represented by a counsel. 

• Second, the toolkit doesn’t contain any directions which led to direct incitement of violence. It was a necessary condition for sedition. 
• Third, it undermines democratic power when people are arrested due to excessive suspicion and not on merits. Thereby undermining due process. 
• Fourth, such arrest shows non judicious use of police power which will diminish India’s Global image. 

Way Forward: 

• The focus should be on addressing the tolerance gap in governance and not on using more repressive strategies. 
• The masses shouldn’t feel that their rights are not respected by the government and free speech should not be curbed by illegitimate means. 
• In the case of Ravi, an impartial investigation to establish her crime should be done. 

Recently Climate activist in India was arrested in the Greta Thunberg toolkit case. Delhi police filed an FIR and issued a non-bailable warrant against two other persons related to the case. Many activists are of the opinion that the arrests are allegedly politically motivated and the government is silencing its critics. But it is just one side of the argument.

What is Tool Kit?

• A toolkit is a set of essential guidelines or suggestions to get something done. The contents of the tool kit differ depending upon the activity. For example, the recent self-regulation tool kit by OTT platforms for self-regulation. 
• The tool kit is also released by governments. For example, the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) has a toolkit for better implementation of IPR (Intellectual Property Right) in India.
• A tool kit is also used during protests. It contains pieces of information to help the protesters to promote their campaign and to become  popular as much as possible.
• It was used more actively in Wall Street protests of 2011, Hong Kong protests of 2019, and anti-CAA protests across India.
• During the anti-CAA protests, a toolkit suggested places to hold protests, Twitter hashtags to use, and other similar guides were shared on social media.

What is the Greta Thunberg toolkit case?

Greta Thunberg is an 18-year-old Swedish environmental activist. She shared a toolkit on Twitter during the anti-farm law protests. The tool kit suggested few activities like creating a Twitter storm and protesting outside Indian embassies, etc. Due to severe criticism, the activist deleted the tweet within a few minutes. However, it already got circulated on social media.

The Cyber Cell of Delhi Police filed an FIR against unknown people for creating and spreading the toolkit. The Police also claimed the Poetic Justice Foundation (PJF) as a key conspirator. (Poetic Justice Foundation is responsible for pro-Khalistani activities). The police also accused the PJF of waging a “social, economical and cultural war against India”.

The Delhi Police claimed a Climate Activist in India as the editor of “toolkit Google doc” and a “key conspirator” in the toolkit formulation and distribution. The Delhi Police arrested the activist and issued a non-bailable warrant against two other persons.

Previous such example:

The activists are claiming these arrests as politically motivated and an example of the government silencing its critics. These were,

• Sitaram Yechury, a well-known politician
• Yogendra Yadav, an activist and academic
• Jayati Ghosh, an economist
• Rahul Roy, a documentary filmmaker
• Apoorvanand, a Delhi University professor.

What are the existing provisions for such arrest?

1. The Government enacted the Information Technology (IT) Act 2000 for matters related to cybercrime and e-commerce. Based on the Act, the Government can punish for any crime committed through a computer or a network. The Act can charge foreigners also.
2.  The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act of 1967. The Act aims to prevent the activities and associations involved in unlawful activities effectively. In 2019 the act was amended to include the provisions of designating an individual as a terrorist. The Law prescribes the death penalty or life imprisonment as maximum punishment.
3. Sedition cases under IPC section 124A (Indian Penal Code). Sedition is defined as any action that brings or attempts to bring contempt or hatred towards the government of India. This section provides a maximum sentence of up to life imprisonment.
4. Criminal defamation under section 499 of the IPC. This section defines defamation as a communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual person, product, group, business, government, religion, or nation.
5. Several states have also enacted a few specific laws to govern the criticisms. For example, the Draft Bill of Maharashtra’s Shakti Act has a stringent provision for offenders who post defamatory messages on social media.

1. Not all the critics got arrested under these laws. These laws have utility in combating anti-national, secessionist and terrorist individuals and organizations. Few highly publicized cases cannot be the example of politically motivated arrests.
2. The laws were enacted to prevent the individual/organisation from indulging in contempt of government. This is essential for the smooth functioning of democracy.
3. There are instances where activists are involved in destabilizing the democratically elected government. These laws act as a strong defence against such activities aimed to overthrow the government.
4. Prevent the sovereignty of India: India is surrounded by countries like Pakistan, China. So India needs to prevent foreign influences in Indian policymaking. These laws aid the government in preventing undue foreign influences.

Judicial interventions on such cases in the past:

The Supreme Court in various instances regulated and restricted the politically motivated arrests but at the same time, the Court also punished the wrongdoers.

1. In G. Narasimhan & Others vs T. V. Chokkappa (1972) case: the Supreme Court held that a person could be defamed only if there is a definite, identifiable and established evidence.
2. In Fatma Bibi Ahmed Patel vs State of Gujarat (2008) case: the Supreme Court held that the registration of a case against a foreigner for an offence committed outside India was illegal. The court further held that the government had no jurisdiction for such offences.
3. In K. T. M. S. Abdul Cader v. Union of India (1977) case: The Madras High Court accepted the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Indian Parliament. However, the court also held that such law would be ineffective so long as the foreigner remains outside India.

So in conclusion, a foreigner can be dealt with the Indian law only if he is present within the territory. Under this only, Ajmal Kasab was tried in India for the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.

Further read Criminalisation of government criticisms

Challenges faced by the government in arresting activists:

1. The government’s stringent action on criticisms attracts a confluence of such activists leading to various troubles. Like severe criticism of government policies and initiatives, false propaganda, etc.
2. The stringent action of government is also bringing down India’s image in the international arena. Many times arresting a famous activist coincides with foreign government criticising Indian acts. For example, many countries explicitly issued statements against the arrest of CAA protesters and criticised India without consulting and analysing the Act.
3. The stringent action on activists is also seen as a violation of the Fundamental Right. Like the rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly.
4. Global Human Rights Watch also mentions arrests on activists as a violation of Human Rights.
5. It is also seen as a burden to Indian Judiciary and reducing the accountability of the police for their abuses.
6. It can also create an image among supporters like they are free to commit abuses against communities who are in minority.

Suggestions:

1. The government has to strike the midline between constructive criticism and criticisms destabilising India. So, to achieve that the government has to set up a committee to examine and supervise the process. Like
   • Designating individuals and organisations as a threat.
   • Investigation of cases in Fair and Just manner etc.
2. The government has to train Law enforcement authorities to prevent the problem of misuse.
3. The government can also try implementing the following steps. Such as
   • Barring the state governments, local bodies and other institutions (statutory functions) from filing numerous suits.
   • Providing lesser punishments such as corrections, apologies, and retractions, for  lesser form of crimes.

India is the largest democracy in the world. Right to dissent is considered as the lifeblood of any democracy. So, the government should restrict the politically motivated arrest. But at the same time checking the divisive forces is also essential for the government.

Synopsis: The government’s use of is blocking powers under Section 69A of Information and Technology Act 2000 (I.T Act) attracted criticism. There is a need to reforms the blocking powers to ensure free speech in Indian democracy.

Background:

• Twitter suspended some user accounts based on Emergency restriction orders issued by Government under Section 69A. Govt. issued this order in wake of violence in farmer’s protest on 26th January in Delhi. 
• The apparent reason behind such an order was the use of a controversial hashtag #ModiPlanningFarmerGenocide. It could have disturbed the public order.
• However, later on, Twitter reactivated some of the accounts that didn’t violate Indian law. It attracted a sharp reaction from the Indian Government. A non-compliance order against Twitter and its employees was issued for violating Section 69A.
• At present, a temporary peace has been established, after a meeting between Twitter officials and the government. 

Government’s power to block online users:

1. Section 69A of I.T Act 2000:
   • It empowers the government to order an intermediary for blocking access to any information in the digital world.
   • The grounds for exercising the power are; threat to national security, public order, sovereignty and integrity of the country etc.
   • A punishment up to 7 years can be imposed on intermediaries who don’t comply with the government’s blocking orders.
2. Blocking Rules 2009:
   • It tells the procedure which needs to be followed for blocking online content. As per these rules, the orders are subject to review by government committees. Further all orders and complaints should remain strictly confidential.

• Issues with Blocking Power:

1. 1. First, the government can issue restricting orders without any evidence. It undermines the Fundamental Right to free speech.
   2. Second, the confidentiality of orders makes it very difficult for users to challenge it in open courts. There is no requirement of giving any reason or hearing opportunity is a clear violation of due process. 
   3. Third, These rules make censorship an easy and costless option. It places the burden of going to court and gathering the evidence on the user. 
   4. Fourth, The framing of section 69A is in such a way that protection of online free speech mainly depends on the courage shown by intermediaries against government’s blocking orders.

Way Forward:

1. Reforms should take place in compliance with prior judgments of SC. In the Shreya Singhal case, the court allowed challenges to blocking orders in high courts. In the Kashmir Internet ban case, the court said any order restricting access to the internet should be put in the public domain.
2. The government should block access to information only when an affected party is given a fair hearing in courts. Direct blocking should be permissible only in emergency situations.
3. Blocking orders must be put in the public domain along with proper reasoning. The power of government to limit the flow of information needs to be rationalized.

At present the extent of free speech depends upon the capacity of multinational social-media platforms to face governments. Twitter managed to stand up against a clear case of overreach. However, other companies may not show similar courage, especially in cases of borderline overreach thereby threatening free speech. Thus, the demand to ensure free speech must come from citizens themselves. 

Synopsis: The government ordered twitter to shut down user accounts connected with the farm protests. This order hampers fundamental rights and also reveals a complex relationship between the government and large platforms.

Introduction

The growing digitization of Indian society can be seen in the ongoing farmers’ protest. A new hashtag trends on Twitter for and against the farm laws or protests every day.

• Twitter is quite significant in India despite a lower number of users as compared to Facebook or WhatsApp. It is because Twitter is the default social network for political leaders and foreign governments to make statements.
• The government exercised its powers under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act to block user accounts critical of the farm bills. 
• Suspended accounts are in a high number and include a diverse category of users from farm unions, activists, and press publications.

What are the issues in this decision?

The step is against the rights of the users who are not given reasons for the censorship. Secrecy impacts the public’s right to receive information, which is an essential part of the fundamental right to speech and expression.

1. Firstly, the public has incomplete information as the actual text of the legal orders was not disclosed. This is an anti-democratic practice that results in unchecked growth of illogical censorship and also leads to a lack of trust. 
2. Secondly, this outcome has been the failure of the Union executive and Supreme Court. Former framed the process for blocking websites in 2009 and included the secrecy provision; the later failed to examine it. 
   • For example, the court stated in Shreya Singhal, that a person whose website or account was blocked under section 69A could approach a court. However, accessing legal remedies is difficult when the direction for blocking is secret.
3. Thirdly, several state governments are refusing to publish orders on internet shutdowns even after RTI is filed. 
4. Fourthly, due to absence of any prior notice, users are not given an opportunity to present their defense. This is conflicting with the principles of natural justice.  This again goes back to the vagueness and the design faults in the process of how directions under Section 69A are issued.

The way forward 

• In Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India, the court was judging the constitutional acceptability of the telecommunications shutdown in Jammu and Kashmir. In its judgment, It gave a direction for pro-active publication of all orders for internet shutdowns by the government. 
• Thus, the directions of blocking should be made public in other cases as well.

Conclusion 

• Twitter refused to comply with directions by citing the policy of proportionality. This unconstitutional law is being applied to its maximum capacity. It is confusing that a government formed under the Constitution may be failing to fulfill its duties when other platforms that trade in our data for profit are ready.

 https://blog.forumias.com/polity/constitutional-bodies/

What is the news?

Union Home Ministry has informed Rajya Sabha about the cases registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Sedition(Section-124A).

Cases under UAPA:

• Between 2016 and 2019, the total number of the persons arrested and convicted in the country under UAPA were 5,922 and 132 respectively. This means only 2.2 % of cases registered under the Act ended in convictions by the court.
• The NCRB does not maintain this data on the basis of religion, race, caste or gender.

Cases under Sedition:

• In 2019, as many as 96 persons were arrested for sedition (Section 124A IPC) but only two were convicted and 29 persons were acquitted.
• The most cases of sedition in 2019 were registered in the States of Karnataka followed by Assam and J&K & Ladakh.

Click Here to Read about Sedition

 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,1967:

• It is primarily an anti-terror law – aimed at more effective prevention of certain unlawful activities of individuals and associations and for dealing with terrorist activities.
• It was promulgated in 1967 to target secessionist organisations. It is considered to be the predecessor of laws such as the (now repealed) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and Prevention of Terrorism Act(POTA).

Key Provisions of the Act:

• The Act assigns absolute power to the central government. It can declare an activity as unlawful, by way of an Official Gazette.
• The act has the death penalty and life imprisonment as the highest punishments.
• Under the act, both Indian and foreign nationals can be charged. It will be applicable to the offenders in the same manner, even if the crime is committed on a foreign land, outside India.
• The investigating agency can file a charge sheet in maximum 180 days after the arrests. This duration can be extended further after information to the court.

2004 amendment:

• The act was amended in 2004. It added “terrorist act” to the list of offences, to ban organisations for terrorist activities.
• Till 2004, “unlawful” activities referred to actions related to secession and cession of territory. Following the 2004 amendment, “terrorist act” was added to the list of offences.

2019 amendment:

• The amendment empowers the Central Government to designate individuals as terrorists on certain grounds.
• It empowers the Director-General, National Investigation Agency (NIA) to grant approval of seizure or attachment of property when the case is under investigation by the agency.
• It also empowers the officers of the NIA, of the rank of Inspector or above to investigate cases of terrorism in addition to those conducted by the DSP or ACP or above rank officer in the state.

Source: The Hindu

What is the News?
The Government of India has asked Twitter to follow Indian laws. The government has also expressed disappointment over partial compliance with its orders.

What was the issue?

• The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology(MeitY) ordered Twitter to block several Twitter accounts for posing a threat to law and order. The order was issued under Section 69A of the Information Technology(IT) Act.
• On this, Twitter blocked several accounts. But very soon it reactivated several of them citing free speech and because it found the content newsworthy.

Government’s response:

• The government has said that Twitter was free to formulate its own rules and guidelines. But the Indian laws which are enacted by the Parliament must be followed irrespective of Twitter’s own rules.
• On free speech, the government has said that freedom of speech and expression is provided under Article 19 (1) of the Constitution of India.
• However, freedom of expression is not absolute, and it is subject to reasonable restrictions as mentioned in Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India.

Section 69A of the Information Technology(IT) Act:

• When was it introduced? Section 69A of the IT Act was introduced by an amendment to the Act in 2008.
• Powers: It allows the government to block public access to any intermediary in the interest of
  • Sovereignty and integrity of India
  • Defence of India
  • Security of the state
  • Friendly relations with the foreign States or
  • Public order or
  • Preventing incitement of any cognisable offence relative to the above.
• Intermediaries: The intermediaries under the Act include; telecommunication companies, internet service providers, network operators, web-hosting services, search engines, payment gateways and other relevant portals and services.
• Procedure: Section 69A provides the government with the power to block public access. But the procedure to do that is listed in the IT (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking of Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.
• Penal Provisions: The Act says prescribes punishment for any intermediary (internet platform) for failure to comply with the government direction. Punishment can be imprisonment for up to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

Source: The Hindu

There are many laws aiding the government in the protection of national interests. They are

First, Sedition under section 124A of the IPC (Indian Penal Code). Sedition is defined as any action that brings or attempts to bring contempt or hatred towards the government of India. Sedition cases are punishable with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Second, Criminal defamation under section 499 of the IPC. Defamation is defined as the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual person, group, product, business, government, religion, or nation.

Third, the government enacted the Information Technology (IT) Act 2000 for matters related to cybercrime and e-commerce. Under this act, the Government can punish any crime involving a computer or a network. The Act can charge Indian citizens as well as foreigners.

Fourth, The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act of 1967. The Act aims to effectively prevent unlawful activities and associations involved. In 2019 the government amended the provisions of the Act to designate an individual as a terrorist. The Law prescribes a maximum punishment of death penalty or life imprisonment.

Fifth, Apart from these Acts several states have enacted specific laws to govern their security. For example draft bill of Shakti Act of Maharashtra has a provision for stricter punishment for offenders who post defamatory messages on social media.

Recently Bihar government decided to categorize defamatory and offensive social media posts against government officials as cybercrime. Bihar Police has issued a circular to implement this order.

This is not the first instance when Sedition laws and criminal defamation have been used to silence the critics of the government.

Examples of Government silencing critics:

First, As per the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), 70 people were accused of sedition in 2018. But only four cases actually ended in conviction.

Second, In August 2016, the court criticized the then Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa for misusing the criminal defamation law to “suffocate democracy” and, the court held that, “public figures must face criticism”.

Third, In May 2020 Madras High Court declared 28 criminal defamation proceedings filed by the Tamil Nadu government as invalid.

Fourth, the NCRB Report 2018 mentions, the conviction rate of offenders prosecuted under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act was just 14.5% in 2015.

These are clear examples of government using sedition, Criminal defamation and other suits as a means of harassment.

What are the laws governing criticisms against the government?

First, Sedition under section 124A of the IPC (Indian Penal Code). Sedition is defined as any action that brings or attempts to bring contempt or hatred towards the government of India. Sedition cases are punishable with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Second, Criminal defamation under section 499 of the IPC. Defamation is defined as the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual person, group, product, business, government, religion, or nation.

Third, The Government enacted the Information Technology (IT) Act 2000 for matters related to cybercrime and e-commerce. Under this act, the Government can punish any crime involving a computer or a network. The Act can charge India citizens as well as foreigners.

Fourth, The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act of 1967. The Act aims to effectively prevent unlawful activities and associations involved. In 2019 the government amended the provisions of the Act to designate an individual as a terrorist. The Law prescribes a maximum punishment of death penalty or life imprisonment.

Fifth, Apart from these Acts several states have enacted specific laws to govern the criticisms. For example draft bill of Shakti Act of Maharashtra has a provision for stricter punishment for offenders who post defamatory messages on social media.

What are the Judicial interventions on Laws governing criticisms?

First, In Kedarnath Singh vs State of Bihar case 1962, Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 124A (Sedition). The Court mentioned, “citizen right to freedom of speech and expression does not include incite people to be violent against the government or with the intention of creating public disorder”.

Second, In Balwant Singh v State of Punjab case 1995, the Supreme Court held that mere sloganeering that evoked no public response did not amount to sedition.

Third,  The Supreme Court of India, in the Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India, 2014, upheld the constitutional validity of the IPC (Section 499 and 500). The court mentioned the fundamental right to live with dignity and reputation “cannot be ruined solely because another person can have his/her freedom”.

Fourth, In Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India 2015 case, the Supreme Court struck down Section 66A (this provision criminalizes sending offensive messages through a computer or other communication devices) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The court also held that the provisions of section 66A have violated Right to freedom of speech and expression.

Why we need such laws in India?

First, These laws have utility in combating secessionist, anti-national and terrorist elements. Some highly publicized cases cannot be the reason to repeal section 124A, section 499 and UAPA.

Second, If contempt of court invites penal action, the contempt of government should also attract similar punishment for the smooth functioning of democracy.

Third, These laws provide stability to the democratically elected government. Sedition laws, Defamation laws and UAPA act as a strong defence against violence and illegal activities aimed to overthrow the government

Why the provisions have to be repealed?

First, These provisions are clear examples of a violation of the Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression. Right to question, criticize and change rulers is one of the fundamental ideas of democracy. Both the sections of IPC(124A and 499) and the provisions of UAPA are in direct conflict with the aforesaid Rights.

Second, IPC and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act have provisions that penalize “disrupting the public order” or “overthrowing the government with violence and illegal means”. These are sufficient for protecting the national integrity. There is no need for Section 124A and 499. It can be repealed.

Third, In 1979, India ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR sets out internationally recognized standards for the protection of freedom of expression. However, the misuse of sedition, criminal defamation and UAPA is inconsistent with India’s international commitments.

Fourth, Even the UK (sedition law originated) and Australia have removed sedition laws. International bodies such as the UN had recognized the threat posed by criminal defamation laws.

Fifth, The criticisms if reach at right time to the government, then it can save a lot of resources, government machinery, etc.

Way forward:

There are certain ways to improve sedition, criminal defamation and the application of UAPA in India.

First, We have to educate the Law enforcement authorities to prevent the problem of misuse. The enforcement authorities might be trained regarding the application and non-application cases of sedition, criminal defamation and UAPA suits.

Second, the State has to follow the Parent-Child approach during the criticisms where raised. The Madras High court advocated this approach in May 2020.

Third, The Protection of Speech and Reputation Bill, 2016 in modified form can be enacted by the government. The Private member bill has certain important provisions such as

• • Setting the maximum claim limits and barring governments, local bodies and other institutions (statutory functions) from filing suits for defamation and sedition.
  • Providing punishments such as apologies, corrections and retractions, for a lesser form of crimes.

India is an open and liberal society, the largest democracy. But to secure national integrity, divisive forces have to be kept in check. So, it is necessary to retain the laws criminalising criticisms. But the wrongful enforcement and misuse have to be checked.

In India, criminal defamation falls under section 499 of the IPC. Defamation is defined as the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual person, group, product, business, government, religion, or nation.

Section 500 punishes the criminal defamation. The person who commits the crime can be punished with the imprisonment for a term up to two years, or fine, or both.

Section 499 of IPC also mentions exceptions to criminal defamation. The exception includes “imputation of truth” required for the “public good” and has to be published.

The Supreme Court of India, in the Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India, 2014, upheld the constitutional validity of the IPC (Section 499 and 500). The court mentioned the fundamental right to live with dignity and reputation “cannot be ruined solely because another person can have his freedom”.

Difference Between Civil and Criminal Defamation:

In India, Sedition falls under section 124A of the IPC (Indian Penal Code). It is defined as any action that brings or attempts to bring contempt or hatred towards the government of India. Sedition cases are punishable with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

It is classified as “cognisable”(No need Court warrant to arrest the person) and a “non-bailable” and “non-compoundable” offence.

History of Sedition in India:

Sedition laws were first enacted in 17th century England. Later it was inserted into IPC in 1870.

1. The section was introduced initially to deal with increasing Wahabi activities between 1863 and 1870. These activities posed a challenge to the colonial government.
2. Some of the most famous sedition trials of the late 19th and early 20th century involved Indian nationalist leaders.
   • The first among them was the trial of Jogendra Chandra Bose in 1891. He was the editor of the newspaper, Bangobasi. He wrote an article criticizing the Age of Consent Bill for posing a threat to the religion and for its coercive relationship with Indians.
   • It was also used to prosecute Bal Gangadhar Tilak (for his writings in Kesari) in 1897.
   • The other well-known case was the sedition trial of Mahatma Gandhi in 1922. Gandhi had called Sedition “the prince among the political sections of the IPC designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen”.

Judicial interventions on Sedition law:

1.  In 1951, the Punjab High Court had ruled Section 124A to be unconstitutional. A similar ruling was passed in 1959 by the Allahabad High Court, which also concluded that it struck at the very root of free speech.
2. Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar,1962:
   • The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of Section 124-A (sedition) on the basis that this power was required by the state to protect itself.
   • However, it said that every citizen has a right to say or write about the government by way of criticism or comment. A citizen can criticise the government to the extent it does not incite people into violence against the government or with the intention of creating public disorder.
3. P.Alavi vs State of Kerala,1982:
   The Supreme Court held that sloganeering, criticising of Parliament or Judicial setup does not amount to sedition.
4. Balwant Singh v State of Punjab,1995:
   • The Supreme Court acquitted persons from charges of sedition for shouting slogans such as “Khalistan Zindabad”.
   • The court held that mere raising of slogans by two individuals alone cannot be sid as sedition. Further, it is also not considered as an attempt aimed to excite hatred or disaffection against the government.

Synopsis– Present data-based technological development and Personal Data Protection Bill 2019 presents a unique challenge to the privacy of individuals.  

Introduction Personal Data Protection Bill 2019   –

By Puttaswamy v India (2017) case, privacy was established as a fundamental right. In other cases, MP Sharma v. Satish Chandra (1954) and Kharak Singh v. Uttar Pradesh (1962), as well, Privacy rights were upheld by SC.  

However, the development of global technology and implementation of the Aadhaar biometric programme in India have diluted the effect of these rulings. Now there is an urgent need to take a new look at the legal position of privacy in India. 

As depicted by Aadhaar based technology and global social media platforms, data has become a new oil i.e., it has become a tool for economic and political gain. It created a stream of data protection legislations, globally. India is also trying to join the league by Personal Data Protection Bill 2019 (DPB).   

In India, the Personal Data Protection Bill 2019 (DPB) is currently under consideration by a parliamentary committee. There are various issues in this bill that go against the privacy rights of individuals. 

Commercial and Political consequences of the Data Protection Bill (DPB): 

Data Collection related issues  

• First- Bill will negatively impact the emerging technologies market of India dealing in creation, use, and sale of data that is valued at $1 trillion by 2025.  
• Second- The bill requires digital firms who want to operate in India to obtain permission from users before collecting their data.  
• Third– Bill also declares that users who provide data are, in effect, the owners of their own data and may control its usage or request firms to delete it.  
  • • European internet-users are able to exercise a “right to be forgotten” and have evidence of their online presence removed. 
• Fourth– The bill allows the government to use “critical” or “sensitive” personal data, related to information such as religion, to protect national interest. 

• Fifth– Open-ended access to government could lead to misuse of data. Mr. B N Srikrishna, the chairmen of the drafting committee of the original bill, warned that government-access exemptions risk creating an “Orwellian state”.

Issues related to Establishment of Data Protection Authority (DPA)  

• Bill aims to establish a Data Protection Authority (DPA), which will be charged with managing data collected by the Aadhaar programme. 
  • • Authority will consist of chairperson and six committee members,  
    • Members will be appointed by the central government on the recommendation of a selection committee.
    • Members will be selected from senior civil servants, including the Cabinet Secretary. 
• The government’s power to appoint and remove members at its discretion provides it an ability to influence the independence of agency.
• Unlike similar institutions, such as the Reserve Bank of India or the Securities and Exchange Board, the DPA will not have an independent expert or member of the judiciary on its governing committee.
• The UIDAI, for its part, has a chairperson appointed by the central government and reporting directly to the Centre.

Issues related to government use of data for surveillance

There are instances that suggest, India is acquiring some features of a surveillance state. 

• As stated by the Union Home minister recently, police used facial recognition technology to identify people after the anti-CAA protests and the Delhi riots. 
• There is a high possibility that police was matching the video offstage with the database of Election Commission and e-Vahan, a pan-India database of vehicle registration.

Issue related to safety of data 

There are instances of controversy where government has shown casual approach towards data safety and privacy of its citizens:  

• First, Safety concerns were raised during aadhaar data collection, which stores biometric data in the form of iris and fingerprints which is a violation of right to privacy.  
• Second instance was of Aarogya Setu contact-tracing app which was allegedly not able to protect the data provided by citizens.  

Way Forward 

• The Data Protection Bill is a unique opportunity for India, a country with some 740 million internet users.  It would be a standard setter for privacy of individuals. 
• Inclusive debate needs to take place in the Joint Parliament Committee and then in Parliament to examine the Data Protection Bill and promote transparency.

Source: Click Here

News: United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs(CND) has voted to remove cannabis and cannabis resin from Schedule IV of the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

Facts:

• Earlier Status: Cannabis was a part of both Schedule I and IV of the UN’s Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs — and while drugs in Schedule I can be used for medicinal purposes with state consent, drugs in Schedule IV are strictly controlled and their usage is a criminal offence.
• Present Status: Now, both cannabis and cannabis resin will only remain on Schedule I which includes the least dangerous category of substances.
• Status in India: Currently in India, the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, illegalises any mixture with or without any neutral material of any of the two forms of cannabis – charas and ganja — or any drink prepared from it.
• Significance: This decision has opened the door to recognising the medicinal and therapeutic potential of cannabis.

Additional Facts:

• Cannabis: It is a generic term used to denote the several psychoactive preparations of the plant Cannabis sativa.According to WHO, cannabis is by far the most widely cultivated, trafficked and abused illicit drug in the world.
• Commission on Narcotic Drugs: It is the UN agency mandated to decide on the scope of control of substances by placing them in the schedules of global drug control conventions.It was founded in 1946 and is headquartered in Vienna,Austria.
• Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961: It is an international treaty to prohibit production and supply of specific (nominally narcotic) drugs and of drugs with similar effects except under licence for specific purposes, such as medical treatment and research.India is a party to the convention.

For further read Click here

This article is based on the two Indian Express articles (links Indian Express, Indian Express) published today and in October, 2020 respectively.

Why in News

• US President Biden promises decriminalising the use of marijuana and also gave assurance to clearing out the past convictions related to it during his election campaign.
• In India also Recent case of wide spread drug usage among Bollywood actors and actresses created a wide debate on whether to legalise Marijuana or not?

 What is Cannabis?

• According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), cannabis is a generic term used to denote marijuana, hemp, weed etc and several other psychoactive preparations of the plant Cannabis sativa and other plants in Cannabis super family.
• In general Cannabis family has two major components

1. CBD (cannabidiol): It is a does not cause intoxication or psychoactive side effects and it is proven as effective chronic pain relief drug
2. Delta-9 Tetra Hydro Cannabinol (THC) is the major psychoactive constituent in cannabis

The WHO says that cannabis is by far the most widely cultivated, trafficked and abused illicit drug in the world.

How the Cannabis/Marijuana is regulated in India?

• Bhang, charas and ganja were regulated by the state excise departments and legally sold till 1985.
• In 1985 The Narcotic Drugs and Psychoactive Substances (NDPS) Act has been enacted central level commercial cultivation of cannabis by production, possession, sale/purchase, transportation, interstate import/export or any other forms is punishable. The Act has been amended three times – in 1988, 2001, and most recently in 2014.
• While CBD oil manufacturing is licenced under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 can be legally used and sold. Some Indian websites do sell. But to purchase it one needs a prescription and many even facilitate it.
• Similarly, Bhang, ganja and charas are enlisted in the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 for use in Ayurveda, Siddha and Unani

Important Provisions of NDPS Act:

• There are no restrictions on cultivation and procurement of cannabis for medical and scientific purposes.
• The legislature left seeds and leaves of the cannabis plant out of the ambit of the NDPS Act.
• The Act establishes Narcotics Control Bureau as the apex drug law enforcement agency and empowers them to oversee the implementation of of NDPS Act and also the other International conventions related to the it..
• For holding a small quantity, the prescribed punishment is rigorous imprisonment for up to six months, fine of Rs. 10,000 or both.
• For holding more than a small quantity but less than the commercial quantity, the prescribed punishment is rigorous imprisonment for up to 10 years, fine of Rs. 1 lakh, or both.
• For holding commercial quantity, the prescribed punishment is rigorous imprisonment for up to 10-20 years, fine of Rs. 1-2 lakh, or both.
• The Act covers three broad classes of substances:

1. narcotic drugs, that is, those covered under the 1961 UN single Convention on Narcotic drugs;
   • Hashish, resin or charas, ganja, any mixture of charas or ganja is prohibited.
   • Bhang or the cannabis leaf is excluded from the act, but regulated through state excise laws.
   • leaf; derivatives include cocaine and any preparation containing 0.1% of cocaine
   • Opium: Poppy based products, preparations with 0.2% morphine
2. psychotropic substances or those covered under the 1971 UN Convention on psychotropic substances as well as other psychoactive substances such as ketamine which are not yet classified under international conventions; and
3. “Controlled substances” that are used to manufacture narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, for example precursor chemicals such as acetic anhydride, ephedrine and pseudoephedrine.

• ‘Manufactured substances’ category includes drugs such as Amphetamines, methamphetamines, LSD’s

What are the significant aspects of the Act?

• The Act prescribes quantity-based punishment. The Act differentiates between small and commercial quantities of various drugs such as:
  • Heroin: 5 grams-250 grams
  • Cocaine: 2 grams-100 grams
  • Hashish or Charas: 100 grams-1 kg
  • Opium: 25 grams-2.5 kg
  • Ganja: 1kg-20 kg
• The Act Criminalize people who use drugs and provide treatment for their relief from National Fund for the Control of Drug Abuse.

Why Marijuana should be legalised?

• Historic significance of Marijuana in India:
  • In later Vedic literature Atharva Veda mentions Bhang plant as one of the 5 sacred plants and usage of Bhang since ancient times is common during the Hindu festivals of Holi and Mahashivaratri.
  • Indian Hemp Drugs Commission in 1894 recommended against complete ban and found the usage as ancient and religious. (For source)
  • In 1961, India opposed the inclusion of marijuana in the UN Convention on Narcotic Drugs, citing its role in social and religious customs
• WHO study concluded Marijuana is not as unhealthy compared to alcohol and tobacco products.
  • It implies that the harms associated with marijuana use were greatly overestimated and society should respond to its use through progressive public health policies rather than ban.
• Magnitude of substance use in India: This is a survey released by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment in 2019, it states that about 2.8 percent of Indians aged 10–75 years (3.1 crore people) were using cannabis in one form or other. (for source)
• Burden on Executive and Judiciary:
  • Narcotics Control Bureau investigate, interrogate and arrest people with small or miniscule amounts of marijuana and produce them in front of judiciary. It requires huge man power and state exchequer to control small or miniscule amounts of drug usage.
  • It leads to wide scope of corruption at lower level of executive which harass people even for petty crimes.
  • By legalising it India can release many young people landed in overcrowded jails whose only crime was using marijuana for fun and free up precious police time and go after the big drug mafias.
• International wave of legalization of cannabis, based on its medicinal properties and commercial utilities Ex. Uruguay became the first country to fully legalize marijuana in 2013. Then Canada followed the path.Now many states in USA legalised marijuana.

Why Marijuana should stay Illegal? (Financial Express)

• Short- and long-term side effects of Marijuana
  • Short term side effects may include a short-term memory loss, impaired motor skills, dry mouth and feelings of paranoia or anxiety.
  • In long term addiction, decreased mental ability and behavioural problems in children (when mothers used marijuana during pregnancy)
• Marijuana is a gateway drug
  • A private study found more than 40% who used marijuana also used other ‘Hard’ drugs.
• Against the Directive Principles of Article 47 which specifically calls for the prohibition of intoxicating drinks and drugs that are injurious to health
• Against International Conventions such as 1961 and 1971 UN conventions against Narcotic drugs and Psychotropic substances respectively and also International Opium Convention’ (1925).
• Difficulty in regulation: The fallouts of pharmaceutical product divergence into cattle market and drugs without prescription can continue in Marijuana too and put India’s younger generation at risk
• Not have completely proven medical records. For Ex., there is no evidence that cannabis is beneficial when used in diseases such as Crohn’s disease, sleep disorder, glaucoma, etc.

Way forward:

Instead of banning, India at present needs a progressive public health policy which control their use and reduce the harms by focusing on health education, age restrictions for buying, taxation policies, limiting the dose of the active ingredients and access to counselling for those who wish to stop is the need of the hour.