Right to Repair Portal

What is the Right to Repair Portal?

The Right to Repair Portal was launched by the Union Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution on National Consumer Rights Day (24th December) in 2022. It is designed to provide consumers with easy access to information regarding the repair and maintenance of various products, promoting sustainability and consumer rights.

Purpose and Objectives

• Combat Planned Obsolescence: Address issues related to products being designed with limited lifespans to force consumers to purchase new ones.
• Monopolization of Repair Services: Break the dominance of manufacturers over repair services, allowing consumers more freedom in choosing repair options.
• Promote Sustainability: Encourage the repair and reuse of products rather than discarding them, aligning with the principles of the circular economy.

Sectors Covered

• Farming Equipment
• Mobile and Electronics
• Consumer Durables
• Automobile Equipment

Features of the Portal

• Focus on Repairs:
• Circular Economy: Promotes the concept of 5R (Refuse, Reduce, Reuse, Repurpose, Recycle), encouraging repair and reuse of products.
• Single Platform for Information:
• Offers centralized access to product information, including warranty and post-sales service details across different sectors.
• Multiple Repair Options:
• Manufacturers are required to share product details, enabling consumers to choose between self-repair, third-party repair services, or manufacturer repairs.
• Consumer Care Details:
• Provides a consolidated list of consumer care contact details for major product manufacturers.
• Post-Onboarding Experiences:
• Companies like TVS and TATA Motors have shared repair videos and experiences on the portal, based on feedback from the National Consumer Helpline.

Benefits of the Portal

• Harmonize Trade & Boost Local Economy:
• Facilitates trade between OEMs, third-party buyers, and sellers.
• Helps create new job opportunities within the repair and maintenance sectors.
• Reduce e-Waste & Save Money:
• Aims to decrease the volume of e-waste by extending the lifespan of products and improving their recyclability.
• Provides cost-effective repair solutions, potentially saving consumers money.
• Allow Simple Repair Solution with Access to Multiple Services:
• Offers a practical approach to repairing products by providing access to various repair services and replacement parts.
• Enhances consumer convenience by offering multiple repair options and clear product information.

Relation to Broader Initiatives

• Mission LiFE (Lifestyle for Environment): The portal aligns with the Mission LiFE initiative launched at the Glasgow Summit of COP 26, which focuses on sustainable living and environmental protection.
• Consumer Rights and Sustainability: By facilitating repairs and promoting the circular economy, the portal supports broader goals of consumer rights and environmental sustainability.

The Right to Repair Portal is an important step toward empowering consumers, reducing waste, and fostering a more sustainable and equitable approach to product maintenance and repair.

Defamation Case Against Wikipedia: Overview and Legal Context

Background of the Case

Asian News International (ANI), a news agency in India, has filed a defamation lawsuit against Wikipedia and its parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation. The case seeks damages of approximately Rs. 2 crores. ANI alleges that Wikipedia published defamatory content on its page and then actively reversed edits made to reflect ANI’s true position.

Allegations Against Wikipedia

• Defamatory Content: ANI claims that Wikipedia's page on the organization accused it of having "pro-government bias," distributing misinformation, and acting as a propaganda tool for the central government. The page allegedly stated that ANI was involved in misreporting events and spreading content from fake news websites.
• Reversed Edits: ANI argues that Wikipedia officials reversed edits made to correct these allegations, thus perpetuating the defamatory content.

Legal Grounds for the Case

• Information Technology Act, 2000:
• Definition of Intermediaries (Section 2(1)(w)):
• The IT Act defines intermediaries as entities that receive, store, or transmit electronic records on behalf of others. This includes telecom service providers, ISPs, web hosting services, and more.
• ANI argues that Wikipedia qualifies as a significant social media intermediary (SSMI) under this definition, as it has a substantial user base.
• Safe Harbour Clause (Section 79):
• Section 79(1): Provides intermediaries with exemption from liability for third-party information, data, or communication hosted on their platform if they meet certain conditions.
• Non-Involvement (Section 79(2)): Intermediaries must not initiate, select, or modify information.
• Compliance (Section 79(3)): Intermediaries must adhere to due diligence requirements as per the Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code of 2021.
• Non-Applicability of Safe Harbour (Section 79(3)):
• Exemption does not apply if the intermediary conspires, abets, aids, or induces an unlawful act.
• If informed by the government or its agencies, the intermediary must promptly remove or disable access to the offending material.
• Loss of Safe Harbour:
• Under Rule 7 of the IT Rules, 2021, failure to comply with due diligence requirements results in the loss of safe harbour protection, exposing the intermediary to legal liability.

Key Points of the Case

• SSMI Status: ANI argues that Wikipedia qualifies as an SSMI because it has a significant user base in India. The status of SSMIs is specifically outlined in the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
• Safe Harbour Protection: Wikipedia’s defense may rely on Section 79 of the IT Act, claiming that it should be protected from liability under the safe harbour provisions. However, ANI contends that Wikipedia’s actions—publishing and retaining defamatory content despite being notified—might negate this protection.
• Potential Implications: This case could set a precedent for how intermediary platforms handle defamatory content and their responsibilities in removing or addressing such content. It may also influence how courts interpret intermediary liability and safe harbour protections.

Similar Judgements and Relevant Legal Framework Involving Wikipedia

1. Petition by Ayurvedic Medicine Manufacturers Organization of India

• Case Summary: Ayurvedic Medicine Manufacturers Organization of India filed a petition claiming that content on Wikipedia about them was defamatory. The Supreme Court allowed the petitioners to edit the Wikipedia page to correct the information and suggested exploring other legal remedies.
• Implications: This case affirmed the right of entities to seek corrections on Wikipedia if the content is defamatory. It highlights that Wikipedia entries, while user-generated, are subject to legal scrutiny and correction if proven harmful.

2. Hewlett Packard India Sales vs. Commissioner of Customs, 2023

• Case Summary: The Supreme Court ruled that Wikipedia, as a crowd-sourced platform, may not be reliable for resolving legal disputes due to its user-generated and potentially misleading information. The court advised against using such sources in legal contexts.
• Implications: This judgement underscores the importance of using verified and authoritative sources over crowd-sourced platforms like Wikipedia for legal and official matters. It also highlights the limitations of Wikipedia’s content reliability in formal legal processes.

Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021

Key Provisions

• Due Diligence by Intermediaries
• Publication of Rules: Intermediaries must publish their rules, privacy policies, and user agreements prominently on their platforms.
• Prohibition on Unlawful Content: They must not host or publish content that violates laws related to sovereignty, public order, decency, morality, defamation, etc.
• Data Retention: Intermediaries must not retain user information beyond 180 days after registration withdrawal.
• Cybersecurity Reporting: They must report cybersecurity incidents to CERT-in.
• Grievance Redressal Mechanism (GRM)
• Grievance Officer: Intermediaries must provide contact details for a Grievance Officer and mechanisms for users to file complaints.
• Resolution Timeline: Complaints must be acknowledged within 24 hours and resolved within 15 days.
• Appeal to Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC): Aggrieved users can appeal decisions within 30 days. The GAC must resolve appeals within 30 days through a digital process.
• Additional Due Diligence for Significant Social Media Intermediaries (SSMIs)
• Chief Compliance Officer (CCO): SSMIs must appoint a CCO to ensure compliance.
• Nodal Contact Person: For 24x7 coordination with law enforcement.
• Resident Grievance Officer: Responsible for periodic compliance reports and identifying the first originator of information.
• First Originator Identification: Messaging services must identify the first originator of information within India.
• Digital Media Publishers
• Self-Regulation and Oversight: Online publishers must follow a three-tier structure of self-regulation and oversight by the central government.
• Code of Ethics: Publishers must adhere to codes of conduct, including content classification and age restrictions for online content.
• Verification of Online Real Money Games
• Self-Regulatory Bodies: The Ministry may designate bodies to verify permissible online real money games.
• Ensuring Online Safety and Dignity
• Content Removal: Intermediaries must remove or disable access to content that violates privacy or dignity within 24 hours.
• Oversight Mechanism
• Charter for Self-Regulation: The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting will issue guidelines and have the authority to block content on an emergency basis.