top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 4:29:04 pm

Algorithmic Anarchy

The NEET paper leak protests at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar should have remained a legitimate expression of student anger over the collapse of examination integrity. Instead, as the agitation escalated into clashes with the police, abusive sloganeering and an increasingly radical political campaign, Meta’s algorithms emerged as an invisible force multiplying the unrest. The controversy surrounding the brief removal of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s message to the youth in the aftermath of the...

Algorithmic Anarchy

The NEET paper leak protests at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar should have remained a legitimate expression of student anger over the collapse of examination integrity. Instead, as the agitation escalated into clashes with the police, abusive sloganeering and an increasingly radical political campaign, Meta’s algorithms emerged as an invisible force multiplying the unrest. The controversy surrounding the brief removal of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s message to the youth in the aftermath of the protests only reinforces that concern. Meta has attributed the takedown to a “technical glitch” and apologised. But when the world’s largest social media platform can temporarily suppress the message of the elected leader of the world’s largest democracy during a politically charged moments, the issue extends well beyond a single deleted post. Who decides what India sees? That question has become impossible to ignore during the Cockroach Janta Party’s protests. Across Instagram and Facebook, users have reported being inundated with CJP videos, reels and protest clips despite never following the organisation or engaging with similar political content. Whether this resulted from coordinated paid collaborations, recommendation algorithms or both deserves a thorough investigation. But the larger democratic concern is that public opinion is increasingly being mediated not by citizens, journalists or elected representatives, but by opaque algorithms designed in Silicon Valley and optimised for engagement rather than democratic responsibility. Meta’s recommendation engine is not a passive notice board. Every piece of political content that reaches millions has first been selected by an algorithm whose workings remain largely hidden from public scrutiny. This is hardly unique to India. Around the world, Meta has repeatedly been accused of amplifying polarisation, misinformation and political extremism because outrage keeps users engaged. From elections to ethnic conflicts and episodes of civil unrest, the company has faced persistent criticism that its commercial incentives reward divisive content over balanced discourse. Democracies cannot afford to outsource the architecture of public debate to corporations whose primary obligation is to shareholders rather than constitutional values. While citizens are entitled to challenge governments and demand accountability, there is an important distinction between a movement that expands because people are persuaded and one that appears to be algorithmically amplified into omnipresence. Equally disturbing has been the normalisation of abusive political language during the protests. When such content is repeatedly amplified through recommendation systems, platforms cease to be neutral intermediaries and become active participants in degrading democratic discourse. Platforms that influence elections, protests and public opinion must explain how political recommendations are generated and why particular narratives receive extraordinary amplification. Silicon Valley companies insist they are merely technology platforms. But their algorithms increasingly exercise editorial power. When software determines which protests dominate national conversations and whose voices disappear, technology has already become politics.

Kunal Kamra moves HC against Sahyog portal 

Mumbai: Stand-up comic Kunal Kamra and Senior Advocate Haresh Jagtiani have challenged the validity of the government’s Sahyog portal – an online mechanism used that issues content takedown directions to digital platforms – in the Bombay High Court.

 

The portal gives content withdrawal directives to platforms like X, YouTube, Meta, etc, and Kamra-Jagtiani have raised serious constitutional questions centering on freedom of speech, due process and the scope of government powers over online content.

 

The petitioners have also questioned the Information Technology (Intermediary) Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rule 3 (1)(d) Amendment Rules, 2023, under which Sahyog was established.

 

Under the amended rule, intermediaries are required to take-down or disable access to information used to commit an ‘unlawful act’ within 36 hours of receiving actual knowledge of such content.

 

The rule further mandates that takedown directions must clearly specify the legal basis for the action, the nature of the alleged unlawful act, the relevant statutory position and the precise online location of the content.

 

The Sahyog portal was developed as a dedicated cyber platform that automated this process and facilitated the quick removal of unlawful online information, data or

communication links.

 

Control on Internet content

The petition by Kamra-Jagtiani, filed through advocate Meenaz Kakalia, claims that the portal enables the government to unilaterally block/takedown online content without complying with mandatory legal safeguards.

 

They include: issuing prior notice to the content originator and giving the affected party an opportunity to be heard. They pointed out that such procedural safeguards have been repeatedly emphasised by the Supreme Court as essential to uphold the constitutional validity of the content-blocking provisions.

 

The duo argued that the absence of these safeguards renders both Rule 3(1)(d) and the Sahyog portal ultra-vires the IT Act, 2000.

 

“Given the conspicuous absence of such safeguards, Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT Rules and the Sahyog Portal are rendered ultra vires the IT Act and contrary to categorical judgments of the Supreme Court and this High Court,” the plea by Kamra-Jagtiani said.

 

Rules arbitrary

Kamra contended that the impugned rule and portal expose all online information to arbitrary takedowns, provide no remedy against such actions, and effectively vest unbridled power in many government officers at the Centre and States, and it strikes at the heart of democracy and peoples’ right to access information.

 

Claiming that these provisions are ex-facie unconstitutional as it allows blocking or takedown of all Internet content on vague and broad grounds such as information being “unlawful” or in violation of any law administered by the Centre or States.

 

These powers amount to ‘an unreasonable restriction on freedom of speech and expression’, exceeding the narrowly defined limits under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, they argued.

 

In their plea, the petitioners contended that orders for blocking/ disabling access to online information can only be issued under the IT Act, Sec. 69A, read with the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009.

 

Previous challenge in Karnataka, appeal pending

Incidentally, last year the micro-blogging site X had challenged the Sahyog portal in the Karnataka High Court, on similar lines. 


In Sep. 2025, Justice M. Nagaprasanna upheld the portal’s validity. Currently, an appeal against the order is pending before the Karnataka HC division bench.

 


Comments

bottom of page