The Kerala Government which is a party in the ongoing Public Interest Litigation challenging the internet censorship rules of the country has filed its statement in support of the IT Rules, 2011.

The Kerala government in its statement has stated that:

" The above provisions are incorporated with the salient object of preserving the right of the citizens against invading of their privacy. There are incidents of publishing of obscene articles, morphed videos, copyright violations etc., wherein the "˜intermediaries"™ have blocked such publications in order to protect the privacy of individuals. If such power to act immediately is not given to the intermediaries, the damage done through such publications may not be effectively rectified. In such circumstances' sub rule (4) of Rule 3 may be upheld as it is introduced in the better interest of the citizens."


In his reply to the statement, Shojan Jacob, the petitioner of the case has stated:

"5. Censorship measures should never be delegated to private entities. The Sub-rule (4) which forces an "˜intermediary"™ to play the judicial role is against the established international principles. Such questions of fact and law are to be decided by the courts of the country. The role of the intermediary should be confined to the mechanical role of complying with the orders of the court / decision making agency.

6. A conjoint reading of Sub-rule (2) and Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 thus creates a private censorship regime without any checks and safeguards. The lack of transparency in the process further facilitates the misuse of these provisions by vested interest groups. Thus, these provisions are only to be struck down for being unreasonable and arbitrary."