GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Ministry of Communications and Information Technology
(Department of Electronics and Information Technology)
UNSTARRED QUESTION NO. 836
TO BE ANSWERED ON AUGUST 17, 2012
Consultation on Information Technology(Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011
836. SHRI RAJEEV CHANDRASEKHAR:
Will the Minister of COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY be pleased to state:
(a) whether Government is engaged in any consultation process with all stakeholders, including Members of Parliament, industry and civil society, to discuss the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011, as assured by the Hon'ble Minister in Parliament on 17 May, 2012;
(b) if so, the details thereof, including summary of responses received, and outcome thereof; and
(c) if not, the reasons therefor and when such consultation is proposed to be held?
MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
(SHRI SACHIN PILOT)
(a) and (b): Pursuant to the discussions held on the floor of Rajya Sabha on 17th May 2012, on Motion for annulment of the Information Technology (Intermediaries Guidelines) Rules, 2011 notified under section 79 of the Information Technology Act 2000, which was negated, the Government had organized a Meet on 2.8.2012 in New Delhi to discuss the Rules. The Meet had participants from all stakeholders including Members of Parliament, representatives of Industry Association from Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI), National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM), International Association of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences (IAMAS), Internet Service Providers Association of India (ISPAI) and The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM) and intermediaries. In general, there was a consensus on the need to observe due diligence and to exercise care while uploading the content as well as removal/disablement of objectionable content. There was also consensus that the process followed by Government in framing the Rules was fair and transparent. There was a general agreement that the process as specified in the Rules is reasonable. However, it was agreed that the consultation process should be continued for the purpose of bringing more clarity in certain clauses and to address the issues arising out of changes in technology and environment.
(c): Does not arise.