By Bharti Garg
The advent of internet has completely changed the way people interact and work in daily lives and brought the entire globe on one’s palms. Gradually, even the governments have started incorporating the facility of internet in their operations and dissemination of public services, which has ushered in the vibrancy of a participative population true to the character of democracy.
Its utility has become so pervasive that the issues of illiteracy and equality in policy decisions has taken another colour, that of ‘digital illiteracy’ and ‘digital divide’. In fact, last year the UNHRC had passed a non-binding resolution condemning countries which intentionally disrupt internet and extolled it as a basic human right.
Who knows that few years from now, our Apex Court might also interpret Article 21 of our Constitution on that touchstone?
For a nation which cherishes the liberty of thought, speech and expression of individuals as the oxygen of its existence, the blessing of internet is truly priceless.
It has expanded the base of audience and critics of one’s information and opinions and even the Supreme Court in 2015 in the case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India held that the access which facilitates the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) to be exercised to so wide a section of population is also an integral part of the said right.
Further, the digital newspapers and blogs have given a stiff competition to the conventional printed ones as now the information whizzes at the speed of light.
Having curtly outlined the known inroads which the internet has made, one controversy that doesn’t seem to ever settle in that regard is that of the desirability and extent of its censorship.
It is trite that the whole gamut of restrictions on one’s speech is contained in Article 19(2) of Constitution, with nothing less or more.
Nevertheless, considering that electronic media is more emphatic because of its audio-visual impact and wide reach, the Information Technology Act of 2002 was enacted to confront the internet-specific concerns and give power to governments to block access to its content.
The Apex Court in the aforesaid case struck down one of the provisions, Section 66A, of the Act, which provided extra-constitutional grounds on which one’s content over online platforms could be penalised, and at the same time validated such an interdict only within the constitutional contours such as public order, sovereignty of nation, morality, etc.
However, since airwaves are a public property, they have to be used in the best interest of the society which may justifiably require regulation in the form of censorship, although it is a different matter that the absence of consistent strategy and guidelines has given a considerable leeway to the political interests supplanting the public interest as the governments continue to prudishly commit excesses.
One ineluctable constraint over free net is the issue of safety and privacy of children as unfettered network unshackles the expression of lecherous tendencies of pedophiles and hebephiles by spreading child pornography.
Similarly, it has led to mushrooming of crimes and their propagation as umpteen videos of heinous rapes, sex trafficking and exploitation of women are uploaded by the perpetrators, which would severely jeopardize the lives of the victims if this weapon of limited opacity is not used.
It is equally important to ensure that even the children are not exposed to adult pornography, which though is the duty of their parent, but when the medium is internet, then requires the role of State as parens patriae.
Another reason is the interception of terrorist activities which have lately cranked up through the manoeuvre of social media worldwide by egging on the targeted individuals to join these outfits and by telecasting their grisly attacks.
The growth of covert contribution to ISIS has been pumped largely by such tactics, penetrating countries far east and west.
Today, a secessionist, racist or any other kind of miscreant is able to cut a much wider swath and enkindle mass support for his machinations which could significantly be snuffed out by censoring unsavoury communications, which also enables us to save lives and the huge costs involved in military counteraction.
Whereas an artist or an author can nowadays gain a larger recognition for his work online, whichever corner of earth he may be in, but that comes with the peril of impingement of his intellectual property right.
Free net ought not to supersede the legitimate rights of this fraternity, especially in countries where the legal framework safeguarding the intellectual property rights is still inadequate, lest a great loss of opportunity to enjoy the unsurveyed aesthetics should result.
Lastly, the biggest victim of unwatched access to net is the privacy of its user itself. Large-scale financial transactions and correspondences take place through e-network and various loopholes in the existing mechanism of digital security and the infamous cybercrimes like phishing, identity thefts, hacking, etc. can actually make this technology a Pyrrhic Victory for many, if the requisite content is not blocked timely.
Internet has undoubtedly added fervour to our freedoms, but what is often forgotten is that this comes with responsibilities as well, of both the users and state.
Recently, there have been many instances of indiscriminate suppression of content with even slightest deviations, only to sub-serve the parochial intents of the government.
Nonetheless, considering that many people have scant awareness of the possible digital crimes and encroachment, the power of government, if exercised legitimately, must not be questioned.
At the same time, when we are forging toward a digital economy, the government should also fortify digital and online safety, which is a more feasible solution than frequent censorship and must strictly guide the exercise of its power by constitutional principles and restrictions.