Supreme Court Transfers Petitions Pending Before Various HCs Against IT Rules 2021 To Delhi High Court
The Supreme Court today transferred to the Delhi High Court matters pending before different High Courts across the country against the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules, 2021). The order was passed to enable an analogous hearing on the issues, considering that a large number of petitions were already pending before Delhi...
The Supreme Court today transferred to the Delhi High Court matters pending before different High Courts across the country against the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (IT Rules, 2021). The order was passed to enable an analogous hearing on the issues, considering that a large number of petitions were already pending before Delhi High Court.
The Bench of Justices Hrishikesh Roy and Prashant Kumar Mishra was dealing with a batch of pleas when it passed the order; some of these were transfer petitions filed by the Union of India and some were special leave petitions filed against interim orders of the High Courts, whereby certain provisions of the IT Rules, 2021 were stayed. One was a writ petition.
While the underlying petitions in the transfer cases were directed to be transferred to Delhi High Court, the SLPs seeking modification of High Courts' orders were disposed of with liberty to the Union to make necessary prayer before the Delhi High Court. The writ petition, filed under Article 32, was withdrawn, with a submission that the petitioner will move the Delhi High Court.
As it was pointed out that there are other petitions pending before High Courts, where notices have not been issued, the Bench clarified that all such cases shall also go before Delhi High Court on moving of appropriate applications by either party. It was lastly ordered that the relevant paperbooks shall be transferred by the High Courts to the Delhi High Court without "any loss of time" within 4 days.
To recap, petitions challenging the 2021 Rules were preferred by digital news portals and social media intermediaries before various High Courts. While LiveLaw and News Broadcasters Association approached Kerala High Court, company running The Leaflet moved the Bombay High Court. The Delhi High Court was approached by digital news portals "The Wire" & "The Quint", and social media intermediary Facebook.
In March 2021, the Kerala High Court granted interim relief in LiveLaw's petition, ordering that no coercive steps should be taken against it under the Rules. News Broadcasters Association was granted similar relief in June, 2021.
In August 2021, a division bench of the Bombay High Court stayed the enforcement of "Code of Ethics" under the IT Rules on petition filed by operator of The Leaflet. The High Court prima facie observed that the provisions infringed fundamental right to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and were against the substantive provisions of the Information Technology Act 2002.
The next month, in September 2021, the Madras High Court also stayed the enforcement of IT Rules against digital media observing that the oversight mechanism contemplated by the IT Rules robbed media of its independence.
As these organizations/news portals had moved different High Courts across the country, the Union filed transfer petitions seeking transfer of the matters to the Supreme Court. In addition, it filed SLPs against the High Court orders staying certain provisions of 2021 Rules.
Today, during the hearing, Advocate Rajat Nair, for the Union, informed the Court that a total of 14 petitions were pending on the issue before different High Courts (including Karnataka, Madras, Calcutta, Kerala and Bombay). He pled that the matters may be transferred to any High Court so that an analogous hearing could be given and finality attained on the writs.
After hearing submissions, the Bench asked the counsels present to suggest the High Court to which the matters should be transferred.
Sr Adv Amit Sibal (appearing for some respondents) beseeched the court to transfer the cases to Kerala High Court, saying that multiple petitions were already pending there (which were the first in time) and the said course would be "quickest".
In lighter vein, Justice Roy said, "All the lawyers I see in front of me are based in Delhi". Supplementing the thought, Nair added, "Delhi High Court would be the most convenient forum because everyone is here, offices of the organizations are here".
Responding to the 'convenience' remark, Sibal commented, "Only for the lawyers".
Subsequently, almost all advocates voiced a preference for Delhi High Court. At this point, Justice Roy said in jest, "is there a good justification why we should say Delhi High Court? we want a good reason to give it to Delhi High Court besides saying that Delhi High Court has got a very good looking Acting Chief Justice?"
Nair replied, "there are a total of 5 matters pending before Delhi High Court". Taking into account, the Bench passed the order and closed the proceedings.
Senior Advocate CU Singh appeared for the Foundation for Independent Journalism (the trust running 'The Wire'). Advocate on Record Vrinda Bhandari appeared for LiveLaw.
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Versus AGIJ PROMOTION OF NINETEENONEA MEDIA PVT. LTD. AND ANR., SLP(C) No. 14506-14507/2021 (and connected matters)