New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday is looking for a middle reply to the application that challenges its new rules for allegedly ignoring the fundamental rights of free speeches and privacy users of social media intermediaries such as WhatsApp, Instagram and Twitter.
A chairman of the Judge D N Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh issued a notification to the center of Uday Bedius’s advocate which argued that the new IT rules were not constitutional and antithesis to the basic principles of democracy.
Give time to the center to submit Affidavit counter, the court registered a request to hear more on September 13.
In his petition, Bedi believes that the intermediary of social media cannot be given the power to decide, based on complaints or if not, about which information should be reduced.
The petition states that the new information technology rules themselves do not define how social media intermediaries will voluntarily take action against complaints without peering all conversations through the SMI platform and it is impossible to track the first originating message without decrypting all the stored personal information, published, organized or transmitted through Platform.
While giving power exceeds the strength given based on the parent law, acting, to voluntarily remove access to information that is not in accordance with rules 3 (1) (b), impuited rules have enabled the social media platform to place users under constant supervision It is a serious violation of privacy rights, reading petitions.
The rule is also the mandate that even if the person is not in any investigation of violations of the rules, intermediaries must maintain the data without justification, which is a serious violation of the privacy rights of users, further petitions.
said.
Stressing that there is no appellate procedure provided for below the rules for the decision of a complaint officer and / or Chief Compliance Officer, Bedi, in its application, has added that the broad strength to limit residents-free speech has been placed in hand.
Personal individuals, which are very disproportionate and really not justified.
There was no mandate that information author allegedly unpleasant must be heard before deciding complaints against him, it was stated.