Self-regulation by social media companies a positive step: Legal experts

'Tactical move by govt in terms of dealing with policy, regulatory challenges'

The recent comments by Minister of State (MoS) for Electronics and Information Technology (IT) Rajeev Chandrasekhar that the IT ministry will be open to the creation of a self-regulatory grievance redress appellate body by social media companies is a positive step by the government, observed legal experts.

The MoS further clarified that this body will be in place of the government’s proposed grievance redress committee from the amendment.

An attempt made to reach out to Big Tech players, such as Google, Meta, and Twitter, failed to elicit a response. Meanwhile, the legal fraternity believes that with all the back and forth and backlash the government has received so far on its IT Rules, this is the most positive.

“This is a very strategic and tactical move by the government in terms of dealing with policy and regulatory challenges, for which due credit has to be given to the government. The government has, on the one hand, tactfully tried to balance competing interests in terms of its requirements for access to user data and the demand of civil society to maintain customer privacy, especially in light of the backlash it received on the recent CERT-In (Computer Emergency Response Team-India) notification and also the earlier IT Rules requirements. On the other, by allowing social media players to create a self-regulatory body, the government is creating a co-regulatory model, similar to what Germany did, but ultimately it’s the national regulator that will call the shots. We will have to wait and watch Big Tech’s reaction,” said Salman Waris, partner, TechLegis Advocates & Solicitors.

The MoS in his briefing also said that the self-regulatory body will have to respect the Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution. He said the government had to introduce the idea of a grievance appellate committee in its draft amendment to the IT Rules, 2021 — released recently — because citizens lacked avenues to appeal against the decision made by social media intermediaries and other Big Tech platforms.

The minister was of the opinion that since there is no self-regulatory mechanism, the ministry is open to the idea if the industry and social media platforms come up with their own regulation. The users will also have the avenue to reach out to courts if they are not satisfied with the proposed appellate committee.

The new amendment¬s/rules with regard to the appellate committees will be finalised before the end of July.

However, tech policy lobby players are not happy with the fact that the proposed changes to the IT Rules call for a government-mandated appellate committee.

The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) on Twitter said: “On June 2, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) proposed amendments to IT Rules, 2021, but within hours withdrew the proposal with no explanation. It has now published a fresh proposal, the amendments contained in which are exactly the same as what was published earlier”.

The Twitter thread further read: “When the previous (identical) amendment was proposed last week, we warned that the government will sit in appeal on what is permissible on social media. There are several other concerns with the amendments as well. This is proposed to be done through a government-appointed committee that, without any legislative basis, will have the power to censor content on social media on grounds not stated in Section 69A of IT Act, 2000, or blocking rules. MeitY will essentially be able to appoint itself to sit on top of social media platforms and decide what millions of Indians can or cannot say on their Facebook or Twitter profiles. This is being done with no transparency or accountability measures built into the Rules,” said IFF.

“The constitution of an appellate grievance redress committee is a significant and progressive move that will provide greater recourse to users, especially in circumstances where they are unhappy with the decision of the grievance officer. Multiple layers of governance are crucial to ensure checks and balances on the powers of each layer. As long as such processes do not lead to overregulation, it is favourable to have an alternate redress mechanism to ensure effective decision-making and accountability of public offices,” said Kazim Rizvi, founding director, The Dialogue.

He further added that given the crucial nature of the task performed, having further recourse will ensure scope for revisiting decisions that might have wrongly impacted civil rights.

“In the current scenario as well, the office of the grievance officer shall continue to remain at its place which will be the primary source of seeking redress and the proposed committee will come above it as an appellate body. While the exact composition of the committee will be notified later, it will be paramount that its composition adheres to the foundational principles of independence and transparency as is expected from any public office,” said Rizvi.

Rizvi also agreed that an industry-led self-regulatory appellate body is a move towards co-regulation. “This is one of the most sustainable approaches for collaboratively tackling the emerging challenges in the digital space. This ensures more effective redress of concerns, while also catering to the concerns around overregulation, which often leads to untoward implications for digital rights,” he added.

Key takeaways

• MoS open to social media companies setting up a redressal appellate body

• The appellate body will be an additional avenue for grievance redressal

• Legal experts believe this to be a step in the right direction and towards co-regulation