As national elections 2019 continue, the twin issues bedevilling the voters and officials are the menace caused by paid news and its abuse by social media. These two problems are of recent origin and did not exist in the last century. Suddenly, in the 21st century, self-promotion masquerading as news, and paid for by its beneficiaries has started appearing in the print and electronic media. The new fangled social media abused such promotional news by spreading it on its various platforms.
India as the world’s largest democracy has successfully held elections over several decades. However, the focus in this article is on the role of the media—the 4th independent pillar in a democracy which is the most powerful pillar which can criticise all institutions including the judiciary and on the role of social media.
The challenges of paid news and political campaigning on social media are matters of deep concern and have threatened the very foundation of the world’s largest democracy. Paid news is a hydra-headed monster. It is a form of “illicit” expenditure that individual candidates conceal in their expenditure report.
Legally speaking, the Election Commission of India has declared paid news as a way to circumvent Sec 77 and Sec 123(6) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951, which prescribes accounting of sealing of election expenditure and makes exceeding the prescribed limit as a “corrupt practice”. Though the long term solution lies in having a new independent body, as recommended by Lord Lavinson in UK, who chaired the Lavinson Committee, set up to investigate the broader question of ethics in media, and recommended that a new independent body with powers to investigate and sanction serious breaches be set up and that it should be backed statutorily by Parliament. This body would both protect the freedom of press as well as provide protection to those who themselves are victims of the press not through expensive litigation to all the arbitrators.
Sadly, this recommendation was not implemented in UK itself. Secondly, when the model code of conduct kicks in, there must be a code of ethics for the audio-visual and print media in place. Third, Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 must make paid news a “cognizable” offence.
The second challenge to fair elections is the role of social media during political campaigning. In India, almost half a billion people are online. About 300 million of them are in urban areas, which means that political messaging over the internet has the potential to reach roughly half of the population directly. It is this reality that makes the 2019 election unlike any other for parties desirous of leveraging social media to get their message across.
Keeping in view the crucial aspect of the role of social media in elections, the Election Commission of India, on 23.03.2019, in a press note, stated that the “Internet and Mobile Association of India” had developed a voluntary code of ethics for all participating social media platforms to ensure free, fair and ethical usage of their platforms to maintain integrity of the electoral process. This is a welcome decision and will go a long way in regulation of campaigning on social media.
In addition to the voluntary code of ethics, existing provisions under Section 79 and Section 2(w) of the IT Act 2000, read with the IT Intermediary Guidelines rules 2011, under rule(4) can also supplement the voluntary code of ethics.
Under the IT Act, intermediaries can be directed to remove the information in 36 hours and in the event of non-compliance the exemption available to the intermediaries should be withdrawn and the intermediaries are made liable to be prosecuted for the criminal offence on the incriminating material.
Second, the “voluntary code of ethics” is applicable for the period of 48 hours before poll begins and provides guidelines for the removal of content within three hours, should not the three-hour period of removal be applied to offensive contents and the contents violating Model Code of Conduct beyond those 48 hours.
Third, the cyberspace does not conform to geographic or political boundaries. In an election having several phases like the 2019 general elections, it will become very difficult to effectively enforce the 48-hour silent period under Section 126 of the RP Act 1951, as in the concentric nature of social network any removal or censure might infringe upon a lawful advertisement intended for the audience in some other geographic area.
Four, in case of an offensive content, the platforms each have their Artificial Intelligence based engines along with a crowd-sourced platform to identify offensive and abusive contents. However, when it comes to Indic and vernacular languages’ content, these platforms do not have any robust technology available to them for automatically flagging that.
Five, the currently proposed channel of notification and communication by the Election Commission of India will lead to unnecessary and unwarranted delay. There should be a direct channel provided to the Returning Officer/Chairman of Media Certification & Monitoring Committee to flag posts or contents violating the Model Code of Conduct and during the 48-hour silence period before the polls.
Six, a technical solution can be provided by the platform owners where a web portal/platform/service account can be given to the Returning Officers which, in turn, will allow the Returning Officers to electronically flag the offensive contents or the posts violating the MCC.
Seven, there also exists a big void in the electoral rules and law in case any offensive content is posted through proxy accounts/volunteers. As of now there is no well-defined provision or punitive action available to authorities in order to deter such activities. This continues to be a big challenge.
The aforesaid recommendations regarding paid news and social media are essential to ensure a level playing field amongst political candidates as well as to fortify the Election Commission of India in its endeavour to ensure free and fair elections, which are the hallmark of any democracy.
- Mahesh is an IAS Officer. The views contained here are purely personal.