A layman’s guide to GSR 139(E)

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has issued a helpful guidance that spells out how to be ethical and censor yourself for the public good

In late July this year, I wrote about how much money very rich people like Mr Ambani and Mr Jeff Bezos made while their countrymen were being devastated by a hellish pandemic, and how they spent it. Mr Bezos took an 11-minute civilian space flight to the edge of outer space. 

ADVERTISEMENT

After reading the edited proof, I wanted to make some changes in the online edition, since the paper edition had already been put to bed.

“Sorry, sir,” came the reply. “We can no longer make changes in the online edition. That’s the law now.”

The law being referred to was General Statutory Rule 139(E), or in long form, Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules 2021, issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, cutely called MeitY.

I was puzzled. What would the law want to block me from changing my own writing for the better? What if I had wrongly maligned someone or put someone’s life in jeopardy and wanted to correct the mistake? According to GSR 139(E), I would be stuck with it.

Since laws can be opaque, I’m going to put GSR 139(E) into layman’s English for you, to clarify what can happen when you make factual errors or write things that offend others.

The social media intermediary agency—for example, mid-day’s online edition—is required to vet each piece of content to make sure it isn’t pornographic, pedophilic and libellous, doesn’t violate any laws, is not harmful to children and so on. All good. We need this.

The content must also not threaten “the unity, integrity, defence, security or sovereignty of India, friendly relations with foreign States, or public order”.

Example—there’s an article on the eight kinds of Indian biriyani. How would mid-day figure out if this constituted a threat to India’s unity and sovereignty? 

A notification from MeitY could inform mid-day that the story seriously threatened the country’s integrity by claiming that invading Mughal kings had introduced biriyanis to India and for implying that the best biriyanis are still made by Muslims. The ministry finds that this offends a large number of Hindus and could cause communal violence, since everyone knows Hindus invented biriyanis. They could claim that it violates the public’s sense of decency or morality. mid-day could dispute it, of course, but under clause (b) of sub-section (3) of section 79 of the Act, they’d have to take down the offending story first. 

Alternatively, an aggrieved reader (or several) could complain that the article hurt their feelings by knowingly communicating information that is patently false. GSR 139(E) requires mid-day to appoint a full-time Grievance Officer who must acknowledge such complaints within 24 hours and address them within 15 days. 

Meanwhile, the offending article must be made inaccessible, though it cannot be deleted.

What if a publication or TV channel does nothing about these complaints within 15 days? The grievance would be escalated to a certain “self-regulating body” headed by a retired judge of the Supreme Court or other eminent person and registered with MeitY. After evaluating the complaint, they may warn or reprimand mid-day, require an apology, demand changes to the content or even its deletion. All this must happen with 15 days.

If this self-regulating body is unable to settle the issue to the satisfaction of the aggrieved person, the matter moves one level higher, to the formidable Oversight Mechanism, administered by the Ministry itself. The Oversight Mechanism includes an inter-departmental committee, consisting of anyone from any ministry that might be offended, including information and broadcasting, women and child development, law and justice, home affairs, external affairs, defence and others.

Of course, there is the escape clause, which allows all these complex measures to be bypassed. Sometimes the Secretary of the Ministry of Information and Broadcast may just feel that a particular story in the media needs to be blocked right away without time-consuming discussions. GSR 139(E) allows him to deem it an emergency and just order the item to be removed from public view, while various committees review it and the publishers contest the ruling.

With GSR 139(E), we enter the age of “lawful information”, in which the law decides what may be published. The arbiter of lawlessness is the ministry, and while elaborate paperwork and procedures are set up in three tedious tiers of administration to ensure compliance with the law, the last word is the ministry’s, which now has a direct say in the suitability of published content.

Back in another era, social media did not exist and things were different. There was one man, or woman, at the helm, selected for their integrity, wisdom, principles and professional credentials. These persons, highly respected, almost revered, decided what was publishable and what not. 

We used to call them editors.

Here, viewed from there. C Y Gopinath, in Bangkok, throws unique light and shadows on Mumbai, the city that raised him. You can reach him at cygopi@gmail.com
Send your feedback to mailbag@mid-day.com
The views expressed in this column are the individual’s and don’t represent those of the paper

"Exciting news! Mid-day is now on WhatsApp Channels Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!