twitter new it rules

Twitter Appointed Officers in Compliance With New IT Rules, Centre Tells Delhi HC

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, in a short affidavit, said Twitter has acknowledged that the personnel are appointed as the company’s employees and not as ‘contingent workers’.

New Delhi: The Centre has informed the Delhi High Court that Twitter has appointed chief compliance officer (CCO), resident grievance officer (RGO), and nodal contact person in compliance with the new IT Rules.

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY), in a short affidavit, said Twitter has acknowledged that the personnel are appointed as the company’s employees and not as ‘contingent workers’.

Twitter has provided the names of the said appointed personnel and their respective positions also. The said affidavit (of Twitter) mentions their employment start date as August 4, 2021. Twitter has further enclosed their employment contracts along with the said affidavit as proof of such appointments, the ministry said.

The court had on August 10, directed the Centre to file a short affidavit in response to Twitter’s affidavit in which the company had shown compliance with IT Rules.

Also Read: Why The Wire Wants the New IT Rules Struck Down

I submit that Twitter has appointed the personnel in compliance to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 hereinafter referred as IT Rules, 2021, N. Samaya Balan, working as Scientist-E in the Cyber Law Group with the MEITY, said in the affidavit.

Justice Rekha Palli, who was hearing a petition alleging non-compliance of IT Rules by the US-based microblogging site, is scheduled to hear the matter on October 5.

The Centre’s affidavit further said the IT Rules, 2021 is a law of the land and Twitter is mandatorily required to comply with the IT Rules 2021 in its entirety .

Any non-compliance amounts to a breach of the provisions of the IT Rules, 2021 thereby leading to Twitter losing its immunity conferred under section 79(I) of the IT Act, 2000.

The exemptions conferred on intermediaries under section 79(I) is a conditional exemption subject to the intermediary satisfying the conditions under sections 79(2) and 79(3). Further, as per rule 7, failure to observe the IT Rules, 2021 will result in the non-applicability of Section 79(1) of the IT Act, 2000 to such an intermediary and the intermediary shall become liable for any punishment under any law for the time being in force in respect of the offending content, it said.

It further said that the IT Rules, 2021 also mandate that a Significant Social Media Intermediary (SSMI) must have a physical contact address in India published on its public platforms, to receive communications addressed to it.

The SSMI has to enable a mechanism that provides a unique ticket number for every complaint or grievance, which enables the complainant to track the status of such complaint or grievance as per the rule. Twitter is also responsible to submit compliance reports as mandated in the IT Rules, it said.

The Centre had earlier told the court that Twitter was prima facie in compliance with the new IT Rules by appointing the officers permanently.

Twitter had earlier said the appointed persons will work on a full-time basis and are fully capable of performing the functions in terms of the law.

On July 28, the court had expressed displeasure over Twitter appointing a contingent worker as CCO and said that the social media platform was in non-compliance with the new IT Rules.

The Centre had said in its affidavit that Twitter failed to comply with India’s new IT Rules, which could lead to its losing immunity conferred under the IT Act.

Petitioner-lawyer Amit Acharya claimed that he came to know about the alleged non-compliance of IT Rules by Twitter when he tried to complain about a couple of tweets.

The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 seek to regulate dissemination and publication of content in cyberspace, including social media platforms and were notified in February by the central government.

Watch | New IT Rules: How The Modi Government Is Working To Censor Digital Media

The Wire’s Arfa Khanum Sherwani discussed the issue of censorship on digital platforms with Hard News editor Sanjay Kapoor, Satya Hindi editor Ashutosh and senior journalist Anuradha Bhasin.

Google has delivered its first monthly transparency report under new IT regulations, saying it received complaints about alleged violations of local laws or individual rights, resulting in the removal of 59,350 content from the platform. The Wire‘s Arfa Khanum Sherwani discussed the issue of censorship on digital platforms with Hard News editor Sanjay Kapoor, Satya Hindi editor Ashutosh and senior journalist Anuradha Bhasin.

‘Rule of Land Supreme, Not Your Policy’: Parliamentary Panel to Twitter on IT Rules

Twitter spokespersons said that the company will continue working alongside the Indian government as part of its shared commitment to serve and protect the public conversation.

New Delhi: Twitter on Friday, June 18, said it “stands prepared” to work with the Parliamentary Standing Committee on IT on safeguarding citizens’ rights online, even as the panel categorically told the social media giant that rule of the land is supreme and not the company’s policies.

Twitter India’s public policy manager Shagufta Kamran and legal counsel Ayushi Kapoor deposed before the Parliamentary panel on Friday, amid an ongoing tussle between the Union government and the company over the new IT rules.

During the meeting, panel members objected to Twitter India officials’ observations that they abide by their policy and told them that the rule of land is supreme.

In a statement, a Twitter spokesperson said: “We appreciate the opportunity to share our views before the Standing Committee on Information Technology. Twitter stands prepared to work with the Committee on the important work of safeguarding citizens’ rights online, in line with our principles of transparency, freedom of expression, and privacy.”

The spokesperson added that the company will also continue working alongside the Indian government as part of its shared commitment to serve and protect the public conversation.

According to sources, members of the Parliamentary panel also asked Twitter why it should not be fined as it has been found “violating” rules of the country.

Also read: Safe Harbour and the Quickly Rising Stakes in Twitter v Government of India

Earlier this month, the Centre had issued a notice to Twitter giving it one last chance to “immediately” comply with the new IT rules and warned that failure to adhere to the norms will lead to the platform losing exemption from liability under the IT Act.

The government, earlier this week, slammed Twitter for deliberate defiance and failure to comply with the IT rules, which has led to the US giant losing its intermediary status in India and becoming liable for users posting any unlawful content.

Twitter has allegedly not fully complied with the new rules, called Intermediary Guidelines, that mandate setting up grievance redressal mechanism and appointing officers to coordinate with law enforcement.

The rules became effective from May 26 and Twitter, even after the expiry of the additional time, had not appointed the requisite officers, leading to it losing the ‘safe harbour’ immunity.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on IT, chaired by Congress leader Shashi Tharoor, had summoned Twitter officials over issues related to misuse of the platform and protection of citizens’ rights.

On Friday, members of the panel asked some tough and searching questions to Twitter India officials but their answers lacked clarity and were ambiguous, sources said.

The members strongly objected to the observation of Twitter India officials that its policy is on par with the rule of land and categorically told them “rule of land is supreme, not your policy”, sources said.

Twitter and the government have been at loggerheads over multiple instances in the past months, including during the farmers’ protest and later when the microblogging platform tagged political posts of BJP leaders as “manipulated media”, triggering a reaction from the Centre.

Safe Harbour and the Quickly Rising Stakes in Twitter v Government of India

After having notified the rules, the government should now leave interpretation over to the courts and desist from playing to the galleries

In the midst of the pandemic, when Twitter was the go-to place for getting help, a different game was being played out between the platform and the Indian government.

The labelling of a tweet by BJP national spokesperson Sambit Patra involving an alleged “toolkit” as ‘manipulated media’ led to Twitter India’s offices being visited by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police.

Twitter has had its share of confrontations with leaders and governments, including with the former president of the United States Donald Trump, when various labels were added to his tweets. The narrative soon shaped into a confrontation between the mighty Indian government and Big Tech and the issue taking a different political hue with #BanTwitterIndia trending on the platform.

Safe Harbour and the new IT Rules

Platforms like Twitter and Facebook enjoy protection from liability arising out of user-generated content in most jurisdictions. In India, this protection – granted under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 – is conditional upon the intermediary observing due diligence while discharging duties under the Act and observing guidelines prescribed by the Central government.

These guidelines that were first notified in 2011 were substituted by the new rules issued on February 25, 2021. The new rules created a new class of intermediaries called ‘Significant Social Media Intermediaries’. A notification issued on February 26 set the threshold for any social media intermediary to be categorised as significant as having 50 lakh registered users in India. These significant social media intermediaries have additional compliance obligations, like having a physical office address in India and having three levels of officers – a chief compliance officer, a grievance officer and a nodal officer, all resident in India. These additional provisions came into force on May 26, 2021.

The major concern for social media companies has been the provision that mandates that the chief compliance officer shall be liable in any proceedings relating to third-party information when the intermediary fails to ensure due diligence. The action of the police in the case of the labelling episode has only fortified these fears.

A team of Delhi Police’s Special Cell visits the Twitter India’s Lado Sarai office in connection with the probe into the alleged ”COVID toolkit” matter, in New Delhi, Monday, May 24, 2021. Photo: PTI

Targeting Twitter on Twitter

Ravi Shankar Prasad, minister for information and technology, in a series of tweets claimed that Twitter has failed to comply with the intermediary guidelines. He further stated that Twitter was given multiple opportunities to comply with the guidelines and that it has deliberately chosen the path of non-compliance. The back and forth between the government and Twitter has played out in the media and on Twitter itself. It doesn’t help anyone’s cause when nuanced policy and legal discussions are made into a public spectacle and converted into a “government vs tech company” feud.

Adding to the fire this week were multiple reports in the media that Twitter has lost its intermediary status. What was lost in the flurry of action was the fact that intermediary is defined in the Information Technology Act based on the nature of service rendered by the provider. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter as well as telecom providers like Airtel fall into this category. The safe harbour protection which is granted by the IT Act is a defence that the intermediary platform can take before a court of law when it is made a party in a legal proceeding related to liability arising from user-generated content.

To give an example, if Twitter is made a party in a post that is alleged to be defamatory, they can claim safe harbour protection under the Act. The prosecution on other hand could counter this by arguing that Twitter has not complied fully with the intermediary guidelines and hence are not eligible for protection. The court will then have to make a decision on whether there has been substantive compliance with the rules. Before fixing liability on Twitter or any of their employees, many factors including the question of any omission committed on the part of the employee or the platform will have to be weighed in by the Court. Thus, the whole question of safe harbour protection is best left to be adjudicated by a court based on the facts before them.

No role for the government

The government does not have any role in deciding whether an intermediary is eligible for safe harbour protection. This determination will have to be made by the concerned court in appropriate proceedings.

The government, at least as seen from the tweets of Ravi Shankar Prasad, still seems to be focused on the manipulated media episode involving Sambit Patra while the rules itself mandate Twitter to inform users not to post content that is patently false and untrue.

The platform is also expected to inform users that it has the right to terminate access of the users if they do not follow this. The government cannot ask Twitter to follow the rules when it suits them and threaten them when they act as per the rules. After having notified the rules, the government should now leave the interpretation to the courts and desist from playing to the galleries.

Prasanth Sugathan is a technology lawyer and legal director, SFLC.in