Information Technology Act 2000 [IT Act]
Section 66A of the Information Technology Act will be back on the statute books, with modifications, as per the current plan of the government, reported the PTI.
The ministry of home affairs has constituted a committee to examine the implications of the Supreme Court’s March judgment repealing the section, and to suggest changes in the section that will make it fully compatible with the constitution, according to telecom minister Ravi Shankar Prasad’s statement in the parliament.
Another committee chaired by former law commission secretary TK Vishwanathan will study the Supreme Court’s judgment and suggest a “road map” with measures and amendments.
Section 69A, which was also challenged before the Supreme Court but was not ruled unconstitutional in its judgment in March, was invoked by the government to block 857 porn sites in India this weekend, as reported by Legally India.
The Delhi High Court on 23 June blocked 472 websites, but later updated its John Doe order to only block 219 websites, for alleged copyright violation, reported Medianama. The order, which came on the complaint of FIFA 2014 broadcasting rights owner Multi Screen Media, was only implemented in July.
Multi Screen Media instructed advocate Sai Krishna Rajagopal who drafted in senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Akhil Sibal, according to Quartz India. It contended that by allegedly live streaming FIFA online not only were those sites violating its copyright but were also causing tax losses to the Indian government.
The sites blocked include URL shorteners, file storage sites, services for emailing large files, audio files site Wapsip, Telugu content download sites and cartoon sites. Medianama added that the fact that URL shorteners and Google Docs are on the blocking list indicates that the court has not checked every site it has ordered to be blocked, though Quartz added that Google Docs has not been blocked in India.
In August 2012, the Ministry of Communications had similarly blocked 100s of URLs.
A Mumbai resident’s anticipatory bail application for arrest under hate speech laws was rejected, after his anti-Modi Facebook posts led to an FIR against him under sections 153(A), 295(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and section 125 of the People's Representation Act and 66-A of the Information Technology Act, reported Firstpost.
Meanwhile a student interning in Bangalore was arrested for “sending an objectionable message on PM-designate Narendra Modi”, reported the Bangalore Mirror.
According to the Firstpost report, the Mumbai resident had claimed on a Facebook group with 47,000 members that if elected to power Modi would unleash a “holocaust”. Former chairman of the Confederation of Indian Industries (CII) Atul Pai had filed an FIR against him in March. He said: “"The complaint is against Devu for making inflammatory statements and trying to create communal disharmony, not comments against the BJP."
The Mirror reported that the student had sent a picture message to a Belgaum activist who filed a police complaint against him. The message - a morphed picture showing the final rites of Modi being performed, attended by L K Advani, Rajnath Singh, Sushma Swaraj, Baba Ramdev, Maneka Gandhi and Varun Gandhi. It had a caption: Na Jeet Paye Jhooton Ka Sardar — Ab Ki Baar Antim Sanskar (A false leader will never win, this time it's final rites).{jcomments lock}
Four practising Supreme Court advocates are set to challenge the Delhi high court’s dismissal last week of their public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the Information Technology Act (IT Act) and Rules (Intermediaries Guidelines) and the government’s August order blocking hundreds of webpages, under the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression.
Government sends legal notices to account holder on Twitter, YouTube and Facebook who allegedly posted on their webpage inflammatory messages and morphed images related to ethnic violence in Assam.
Notices have been sent to “at least four” Twitter account holders, asking them to appear before a committee on 10 September at the office of the Computer Emergency Response Team. Details of other account holders have been asked for, to send notices.
Pavan Duggal, a cyber law expert, said the government can take action against any person who has published, transmitted or caused to be published or transmitted any such content under various provisions of the IT Act.
“A criminal case could be registered under the IT Act as well as Indian Penal Code,” he said.
Union home minister Sushil Kumar Shinde said:
Besides providing a pervasive infrastructure for discreet communication, cyberspace is proving to be a facilitator for malevolents seeking to enlist new recruits and to purvey a distorted version of the reality.
Anonymity that the user acquires in this medium can sometimes test the capacities of even the most experienced police investigator. Police forces will have to develop skills in this area not just for locating malicious content, but also for identifying those responsible for posting it. [Mint]
The Delhi high court dismissed a public interest litigation filed by a group of law students to quash the department of telecommunications’ notifications last month blocking hundreds of webpages, on Wednesday. The Supreme Court had also returned a petition challenging the block on 31 August, asking the petitioner to appear before the Delhi HC.
The bench of chief justice AK Sikri and justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw in the high court said: "Let the affected party approach the court. We cannot treat this as PIL."
Telecom service providers, internet service providers, search engines, online payment sites and cyber cafes were, according to the petitioners, bearing the brunt of the curb on freedom of speech without being heard. [ET][Outlook India]