Enjoying Exemptions without Obligations.

 It is a generally acknowledged fact that social media platforms like Twitter,Whatsapp, acebook etc. have provided wings to the right of freedom of speech and expression. Rather the use of these platforms have become a part of everyday life. It has become impossible to think a life without this interface for the people world over. But these platforms stand more or less uncontrolled in so far as governments of the countries wherein they operate are concerned. The reason is not very far to seek. The CEOs of these companies are foreign nationals. Also the companies happen to be headquartered overseas with no branch offices situated anywhere else. 

Driven by this sense of feeling indispensable and beyond control;these intermediaries often appear to disrespect or snub the law of the land where they operate. These companies(under the pretext of defending the rights of their users as if they only were the real protectors of users' rights of free speech &expression)snobishly ignore the guidelines issued by the countries of their operations. Sometimes they act arbitrarily and unilaterally also towards removing the blue badges from accounts or blocking the Twitter handle etc. 

                Instances are very consternating when the badges of accounts of the constitutional dignitaries to the rank of Vice President are arbitrarily removed and the like. 

 In view of the fact that these companies have given a new dimension to the rights of people should it mean that they must not be put to questions for their irresponsible behavior? 

These companies, for the protection of their own business interests,have become the self-appointed advocate of their users.

 Under the latter's right of freedom of speech & expression these companies are being found to support their users' such activities as have potential to disturb public order. 

Their misdemeanors don't end there only. On one microblogging site;Laddakh was shown in the map of China. Far from tendering any apology, the Company was even reluctant to correct or remove this misadventureous post despite attention being drawn to that end. 

More recently, in order to malign or acting out of illogical or malicious instincts, these platforms did nothing to stop associating recent variant of COVID namely B.1.6.17 with India.It favoured in a veiled manner the variant being named as Indian one.If by some logic Indian variant is a suitable nomenclature then it is worth reminding that the virus which originated in China should have been referred to as "Wuhan Virus" instead of COVID-19. Isn't it? It is to be mentioned that only a few days ago this variant was officially named 'delta' and misnomer was done away with. 

Indian laws provide exemptions to social media companies from criminal liabilities for the third party posts on their platforms.But this doesn't not give them license to act in defiance of the advisory or directions issued in the larger interest by the government. 

(U/s79 of the Information Technology Act.2006) 

Let me be allowed to ask-

*Is it unfair to regulate these companies which without the slightest compunctions behave irresponsibly? 

*How is wrong  the government when it requires that these companies must depute an officer dealing with complaints against them on the Indian soil ? 

* Is it not justified on part of the government to impose upon them by lawful orders seeking responsible behavior by these companies? Towards fulfilment of this requirement if the government has recently framed Information Technology (guidelines for intermediaries and digital media ethics Code) Rules 2021 what is wrong with it? 

*Do these companies not behave arbitrarily by virtue of being situated overseas? 

We must know that fundamental rights are not absolute. Moreover, these companies forget that the fundamental right to freedom of speech & expression is not available to them.These rights are meant only for the citizens of India and there are many constitutional agencies including the Supreme Court to look after their citizens' rights. For mere reasons that these Indian citizens happen to be the third party users of their platforms this doesn't give them the right to raise the matter they are not entitled to.

In so far citizens are concerned we must know that fundamental rights are not absolute.The principles of reasonable restrictions must go with them.Objectionable speech,activities amounting to disturb the balance of public order or security aspects can't be allowed under the pretext of fundamental rights. Similarly licences, ribaldry, defamation etc.can't be allowed under the pretext of criticism. And the criticism should always be healthy and impersonal. It must not have any element of grudge, hatred, disaffection etc. against people, community or the State. 

The State can't be prevented from taking actions in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India or security of the State or the maintenance of public order, or decency or morality, friendly relations with foreign nation etc. 

And State includes the Government of India. 

R.R.Prabhakar.

06.06.2021.