The Supreme Court on Monday decided to examine the validity of the 2011 Rules under the Information Technology Act that make websites culpable for hosting objectionable content uploaded by users online and not removing them within 36 hours after receiving a complaint.
Mouthshut.com, which hosts users? reviews on consumer durables and services, alleged the rule placed unreasonable restrictions on the exercise of free speech as well as the freedom to carry on any trade or business under the Constitution.
Issuing notices to the Centre and the state governments, a bench led by Justice T S Thakur admitted a PIL by social networking website Mouthshut.com, which has sought quashing of the new guidelines under the IT Act for being ?arbitrary? and violative of fundamental rights of speech and expression.
According to the rules , an intermediary ? a website that hosts contents uploaded by users, must exercise ?due diligence? and take actions within 36 hours after receiving a complaint. The petition stated the rules imposed a significant burden on the website for screening content and exercise online censorship by adjudicating the lawful nature of the content as a pre-condition for exemption from its liability.
It added that as a matter of abundant caution and to protect its own interests, the intermediaries, on receiving a complaint, were forced to disable access to the content posted by a user without giving him a right of hearing.
?It is submitted that while a private party may allege that certain content is defamatory or infringes copyright, such determinations are usually made by judges and can involve factual inquiry and careful balancing of competing interests and factors, the petitioner is not well-positioned to make these types of determinations but is being forced to adopt an adjudicative role in making such determinations,? said the petition
This rule has prompted people to file multiple frivolous complaints against all kinds of materials posted on the website, making it non-viable to operate the websites.