Currently, sharing user data or information without prior written consent is a privacy breach under the IT Act and the Personal Data Protection Bill
Broadcast Engineering Consultants India Ltd (BECIL), a central public sector enterprise under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, recently issued a tender seeking an agency to handle “fact verification and disinformation detection” on social media platforms. This move has raised concerns among experts about potential online surveillance.
According to a recent report on Wednesday that highlighted, besides tackling fake news and disinformation, the selected agency would also identify key influencers behind disinformation and their locations.
Gurshabad Grover, research manager at the Centre for Internet and Society, an NGO, expressed concerns over this development. “The collection of geolocation data is worrisome because getting location data of users on social media platforms is a form of surveillance, which should be accompanied by reasoned information requests,” he said.
Currently, sharing user data or information without prior written consent is a privacy breach under the IT Act and the Personal Data Protection Bill. Additionally, the IT Intermediary Guidelines and Sensitive Personal Data and Reasonable Security Practices and Procedure Rules govern social media in India. However, these laws are still evolving. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) is yet to release the Information Technology Intermediary Guidelines and Guidelines for Use of Social Media Regulations 2020, aimed at regulating online platforms.
Social media platforms in India have become hubs for misinformation and fake news, sometimes leading to violence and social unrest. The government has been urging platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, and TikTok to share data on accounts spreading fake news, hate speech, and disinformation, and to find ways to curb these issues.
In response, these platforms have implemented measures such as labeling posts, videos, and images as fake news, and removing posts that could incite violence through hate speech and unverified information. However, scaling these efforts remains a significant challenge. Experts also worry about the implications of a state-backed agency deciding what constitutes fake news, given concerns about propaganda-driven content promoted by ruling parties.
Salman Waris, Founding Partner at TechLegis Advocates & Solicitors, a law firm specializing in technology, recalled a similar instance a few years ago. “A similar tender exercise conducted earlier by the home ministry regarding geolocation data was challenged in the Supreme Court, leading the government to withdraw it,” he said. Waris suggested this case might also end up in the Supreme Court due to the lack of a clear definition of fake news, leaving much to judicial interpretation.
Grover emphasised the need for careful scrutiny of the government’s role in curbing free speech and expression. He acknowledged the government’s right to intervene when misinformation or disinformation threatens national security or public order.
