IT Rules 2021 : Bombay High Court Asks Centre To File A Short Affidavit On Why Interim Relief Should Not Be Granted

A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice GS Kulkarni was hearing a petition by AGIJ Ltd, which owns legal news website 'The Leaflet,' and a PIL by journalist Nikhil Wagle.

AGIJ claims the Rules are draconian and can have a "chilling effect" on free speech. Accordingly, it seeks a declaration that the rules are ultra vires so far as they apply to news publishers and a stay on their operation in the interim.

During the previous hearing, the bench agreed to consider the pleas if the Supreme Court did not preclude it from hearing the petitions and pass orders on the Union's transfer applications.

The Union has sought the transfer of all 14 petitions challenging the IT Rules to the Supreme Court. It includes a petition filed by LiveLaw News Media Pvt Ltd, in which the Kerala High Court granted interim relief of no-coercive steps.

On Tuesday, Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh for the Union said that the transfer petition was not listed before the Supreme Court, as he submitted earlier. Therefore, a prayer was made before the relevant Registrar of the Supreme Court for early listing, he said.

However, when the petitioners sought relief based on submission advanced on Monday, Singh sought time to file a short affidavit opposing the prayer for interim relief.

"Let a short reply-affidavit, as aforesaid, be filed by the Union of India by Friday next (13th August 2021). Advance copies thereof must be served on the learned advocates-on record for the respective petitioners by Thursday next (12th August, 2021)," the bench said in its order adjourning the matter to Friday.

Singh said that before the Rules came into force, various petitions were filed in High Courts wherein directions were sought for the government to regulate content on online platforms.

He submitted that apart from the single-judge bench decisions of Kerala High Court(in the cases filed by LiveLaw and News Broadcasters Association), no relief was granted by any other court. Finally, Singh cited the order of the division bench of Madras High Court.

"Interim relief was sought & the court said that since there is no action initiated against the petitioners, no interim relief was granted at that stage," he said.

Meanwhile, the court questioned the Union on why an affidavit in reply wasn't filed in any of the petitions.

"Our reply is ready. I cannot file the same affidavit before all the courts because there are different stands & grounds are taken in various High Courts. We want to file an affidavit that can be cited before all the courts," Singh said.

The bench also sought to know from AGIJ's counsel the effect of a violation of the rules if interim relief was granted, but the plea doesn't succeed.

"There can't be any question about breaching anything," Senior Advocate Darius Khambata responded.

The court will now hear the matter on Friday.