Toon trouble: on Vikatan cartoon, I&B Ministry’s move.
The power to block content must be used sparingly.
The order of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, directing the removal of a cartoon featuring the Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, from a Tamil magazine’s website, is unwarranted and may not fall under any of the permissible grounds for such removal. Vikatan Plus, an online-only magazine published by the Vikatan group, has decided to take legal steps to challenge the order. It had earlier defended the content at a hearing before an inter-departmental committee constituted under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The Ministry’s move against the cartoon goes against both freedom of expression and freedom of the press. The cartoon is a piece of trenchant political commentary, as it depicted Mr. Modi shackled in chains in the presence of United States President Donald Trump. This is an apparent reference to criticism voiced in some quarters that Mr. Modi failed to protest against the ill-treatment of Indian illegal immigrants deported from the U.S. The Prime Minister’s approach to a foreign policy issue cannot be immune to symbolic denunciation through a cartoon. It is even more concerning that the Vikatan website itself has been rendered inaccessible to some users, apparently based on undisclosed orders or informal instructions to web service providers.
While a formal order to take down content is provided for in law, it will be wholly untenable if the website was sought to be blocked without recourse to established procedure. The claim that the website has been inaccessible to some since February 15 has not been denied so far. Section 69A of the Information Technology Act empowers the government to block content on specified grounds, including in the interest of “friendly relations with foreign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of a cognisable offence”, but it is not known which of these grounds has been invoked, as the order is confidential. How an order passed in the exercise of a statutory power can be deemed a secret is inexplicable. Even in times like the present when taking offence is a national pastime as well as a reason for several Chief Ministers to unleash the police on their detractors, cartoons ought to enjoy greater immunity than the written word. In this case, it is doubtful if political criticism through a cartoon can be deemed to affect friendly ties with the U.S. or undermine public order. The Centre would do well to reverse the blocking order soon. The power to block content ought to be used sparingly, mainly to combat offensive content such as hate speech, incitement to violence and child pornography, but not in deference to a political demand and without regard to freedom of expression.